Passive Aggression and Selective Statistics

Passive-aggression is among the most irksome of all human behaviors. Most individuals I’ve conversed with about the issue agree that it is both profoundly insulting and utterly cowardly. But why is that, exactly? What about this behavior makes it so reprehensible?

The laws of war are instructive on the matter. Generally, it is understood that wearing the uniform of the enemy, or clothing a combatant in civilian dress, is a violation of the laws of war, and the perpetrator may thus be treated as a spy. Passive-aggression operates under a similar principle. Somebody intends to do you harm, or may even be in the process of doing you harm. He is your enemy. And yet he disguises his actions as a sort of non-combatant so as to avoid retaliation. He may even pretend to be your friend.

Naturally, this is a favored tactic of the Political Left, at least when it possesses insufficient power to work its will more directly. Leftists are able to wear your uniform as a good, concerned, moral citizen, and do you harm in this disguise. A Progressive might say that he is merely concerned with accessibility of healthcare for the poor, downtrodden folks of wherever. In truth, his main concern is personal power. As the arbiter of wealth redistribution, he may decide who to rob, and who to pay, and how much he might take for himself.

Dinesh D’Souza explains:

The relevant quote is this: “…[Obama] holds a gun to your head and says ‘Michael, turn your sandwich over to Dinesh’. And so you do. And then he puts his gun back and rides away. Now, the outcome is the same, I have the sandwich. But the moral content of that transaction is completely different. You deserve no moral credit, you didn’t give willingly. I don’t even feel a sense of gratitude, I feel a sense of entitlement. I feel that you actually owe me seven sandwiches, but you only gave me one.”

The thing to note about this transaction, is that the guy with the gun gets to take all the credit. He gets to say “if I didn’t do this, he would have starved.” And yet the guy with gun didn’t give up his sandwich. Me merely stole it from another man. So how is it that he gets any moral credit either?

So a “concerned citizen” might point out that one person has a sandwich, and somebody else needs it, then appoints himself to be the arbiter of sandwiches. The “concerned citizen” aspect is a ruse. It is a lie. He put on your uniform, and then uses a form of passive-aggression to bully you into nominating him for power. The implication being, of course, that if you disagree with his redistribution of sandwiches, you are a bad person and you want everybody to starve.

Unfortunately, unlike spies caught in time of war, we are not permitted to hang these cowardly cretins.

It goes further, however. Selective statistics are another favored weapon. During the Obama years, many of us on the Right mentioned that the reported numbers on unemployment and the economy didn’t add up. Obama claimed to add millions of jobs, and claimed a massive reduction in unemployment, and yet individuals would look around their communities, and still see the effects of terrible recession. They weren’t getting jobs. Their friends weren’t getting jobs. So who was getting all these jobs?

Of course, the unemployment rate figures have been bogus for as long as I’ve been alive. It’s a manipulated statistic. Aside from not including those who are no longer seeking work, it fails to account for underemployment. So it is easy for the government to move numbers around, change the definitions of those seeking work, and otherwise manipulate the figure. In terms of jobs added, one might fail to mention the jobs lost in the same period. “I added 1 million new jobs!” Well, great, how good is that if, in the same period, 2 million people lost their jobs?

Now, suddenly, the mainstream media has rediscovered that the official unemployment rate is bogus, because that number has dropped since Donald Trump took office. This was more or less ignored, or at least buried in the back pages, when Obama was in office, because the media wanted him to look good. The media was filled with headlines telling us how great he was doing.

It’s absurdly easy to do this with any statistic. You can find statistics telling us that Soviet economy was just fine. This article cites many. You can find the same telling us that Cuban health care is great. Yet my father-in-law, who escaped from Cuba, explains that if you get a cut, you need to bring your own needle and thread to the doctor to stitch you up, because you are lucky enough if the doctor even bothers to help you. He certainly won’t supply you with anything.

Now, the Leftist might claim something like “well, that’s anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence.” Perhaps that is so in a formal debate, where the objective is to convince others. But in truth, it is among the strongest forms of evidence for you, personally. It is precisely how you can avoid someone telling you that 2+2 = 5, even if that person is more educated or intelligent. It is how you avoid being gullible.

It is telling that the Leftist essentially tells you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes, and trust him, because he is the expert.

Like the man who wishes to be the arbiter of sandwiches, these sorts of people want to be arbiters of knowledge, and decide what is true, and what is false, by fiat. They are a collective Xerxes, whipping the sea for disobedience.

Again, the objective is control. These people want power for its own sake, and merely dress themselves up in the uniform of reasonable intellectuals so as to avoid triggering resistance.

Marxism has always operated this way. It is the ideology of cowards and spies. It is passive-aggressive behavior turned into a code of political conduct. And were the full power of Western civilization ever deployed against it, it could be wiped out entirely with relative ease. So the objective of the Marxist is always to clothe himself as your friend, as a concerned citizen, as a reasonable intellectual, as anything but what he actually is, so as to avoid retribution. Never let the Marxist fool you into believing otherwise.

The Edgar Suit is Slipping Away

The esteemed Sarah Hoyt has written a great followup to Marxism: the Bug Wearing an Edgar Suit. As we know, the Left infiltrates institutions, guts them, and wears the skin of the destroyed institution, demanding the respect once due to the original. They then use this to destroy individuals who do not cooperate with the politically correct narrative. Marxists may be terrible economists, and inverted moralists, but they are quite good at playing political games. It may be the only real talent they have.

Unfortunately that talent is generally sufficient to launch them to the fore.

Sarah explains for us:

There was a time — listen to me, children — when the left had the power to utterly destroy anyone they chose to.

 

They would descend in a swarm, find some little thing you had said, take it out of context, then pound you with it until you no longer had a job, a marriage, any friends willing to admit to knowing you.

 

Actually it wasn’t even required that they take something you said and take it out of context.  They controlled all the gate keeping positions and a whisper campaign could go out — the equivalent of having your papers stamped PU for Politically Unreliable — and depending on how much money they could make off you, you’d either be turned out without references (so to put it) or, in my field, be kept in midlist durance vile.  (In other fields there are equivalents, where you do all the work, but never get anywhere with money, let alone power.)

 

This is partly how they GOT all the gatekeeping positions, and kept them, or in other words, how they gutted all the important institutions of our culture and then wore the institutions’ skin, demanding respect.

Most of us on the Right have dealt with this. The options were generally to hide your political views, and stuff yourself into the Conservative closet, or to suffer significant penalties to your career, your social life, and your income. The Left made Conservatism expensive in terms of social capital. However, as Sarah tells us, the Left had to spend vast amounts of capital themselves in order to achieve this. They had to take over academia, the media, entertainment, and infiltrate pretty much every sizable institution in the country. In simple terms, they needed a monopoly.

Because if a Right-winger had the ability to leave the places where the Left held sway, he could no longer be silenced.

The Edgar suit has been slipping away for quite some time now. In 2016, the media’s skin suit slipped off entirely. Their hatred of Trump was so great, and their love of Hillary so complete, that the skin suit cracked and fell apart. Everyone knows the media is partisan now. The fiction of an unbiased, impartial purveyor of news has fallen away forever. And here’s the kicker: all of this vast expenditure of social capital was insufficient to topple Donald Trump’s campaign. They put all their chips into the pot, and still couldn’t buy victory.

They continue to attack Rightists this way, and they enjoyed some success with Milo (though he avoided complete defeat, too), but increasingly, they require cooperation from the Right itself in order to destroy enemies. Treacherous, dishonest blowhards like Evan McMullin are solicited by the Left for cooperative action, because the Left lacks the ability to win these battles alone any longer.

And even that was insufficient to totally destroy their chosen target. They did some damage, but Milo was left standing.

Even if a Rightist may lose such a conflict, it behooves us to fight to the end, tooth-and-nail, because even a Leftist victory is Pyrrhic for them, now. Force them to spend ever-more absurd amounts of money and social capital. Bankrupt them on the social stage. Make victory so utterly expensive that even they are afraid to pay the price.

It’s like punching a bully in the nose. You may win the resulting fight, or you may lose, but rest assured, the bully will now have to add this to his mental calculus: if I attack this man, he’ll punch me in the face.

And, increasingly, we are winning these engagements, because the accumulated respect due to original institutions is fading. The skin suit is rotting. Edgar’s carcass is slipping away, revealing the alien cockroach festering underneath the maggot-infested sack of meat.

Every time the left pulls that lever for the outrage machine, they’re spending capital.  Every time they start a witch hunt, the skin suit slips a little and the respect we owed the gutted institution is lost.

 

It won’t be long till our only reaction to outrageous accusations is what it already is in Science Fiction outside their circles: point and make duck noises.

Sarah makes an excellent point here. Someday these fights won’t even be serious any longer. We will laugh at them. They will be outside, looking in. But make no mistake, even then we must remain vigilant. The Marxist is always looking for his way in, and the Marxist will always be with us. Its overly-simplistic moral relativism will always appeal to some, and will always be manipulated by those seeking it as a path to personal power. Call it whatever you will, but even the ancient Greeks understood it well enough:

Remember your Aristophanes:

Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; […] I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. […]

 

Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?

 

Praxagora: The slaves.

Competitive Morality Explained

In one of the shares on Facebook, I discovered this little gem:

This is a great refutation of the idea that the person holding the gun to someone’s head, and demanding that the wealth be redistributed from one person to another, is somehow morally superior to everyone else.

Charity is something that most people realize has an intrinsic moral character to it. But when the government uses coercion to redistributed from Peter to Paul, the charitable character of the transaction is utterly lost.

Peter has no choice. He must pay Paul. And without the choice, how can Peter claim he has done charitable works? And the agent who holds the gun cannot claim to be charitable either, for it is not his wealth that is being given. He is taking from someone else.

The government sucks the charity out of everything. It deprives us of the satisfaction of having helped another out of our free will. And, furthermore, the government doesn’t like us freely giving without their interference. The government wants a monopoly on this. Why else would they trumpet moral superiority while simultaneously screwing the poor?

When a BBQ event wanted to donate their leftover food, excellent first class BBQ cooking, to the poor, what did hte government do?

It demanded that the food be destroyed.

Similar things happen all the time. Churches are fined for allowing the homeless to sleep on church property. Soup kitchens are kicked out of parks in Miami, because the locals (mostly Democrats!) don’t like the poor hanging around the park to get a bowl of soup.

No. The only charity that is to be allowed is the kind that isn’t charity in the first place. All they want is your wealth, so they can grab a slice of the redistribution for themselves. Graft, bribes, selling off baby parts for Lamborghinis, whatever.

And the Left calls this charity. They call this helping their fellow man.

Pull the other one.

Marxism: the Bug Wearing an Edgar Suit

In the movie Men In Black, there’s a scene where an abusive farmer gets killed by the villain, some kind of giant alien cockroach. The alien then possesses his body and walks around in comic fashion, like some kind of rotting zombie. The farmer’s wife exclaims “like an Edgar suit.”

560db22fe14e951aea89980b21a9c598

This is pretty much what Worldcon looks like, these days.

Social Justice Marxists operate in the same manner. They take over institutions, groups, corporations, movements, whatever… and kill them. They then wear the skin of the destroyed, rotting institution like an Edgar suit, ambling around in comic fashion, expecting to be treated as if they were still the institution itself.

Only unlike the movie, there are a great many of these alien bugs on Earth. They are legion. And the thing is, most rightists suspect this is true, because the Edgar suit doesn’t act like Edgar. He acts like an alien cockroach. But they nonetheless give the benefit of the doubt, because they aren’t sure.

It is in that space of uncertainty that Marxism is permitted to spread, and infest every sizable organization. Once infected, forget bringing the organization back to life. It’s a rotting husk. It’s dead. You aren’t going to take it back, and even supposing you did, it’d still be a rotting sack of skin.

I think this is the greatest weakness of the political right. We permit Marxism to spread because we are not confident in our assessment that the people in question are Marxists. Most of them deny it, of course.

I remember when one leftist kept posting about how the border wall was racist, and how illegal immigrants ought to be able to come over, and how stopping them was bad. When I asked him why he was for open borders he denied it. Yet, his chosen policy would result in a de facto open border! Was he really that delusional… or was he a Marxist trying to say “I’m not a Marxist”?

One of the ways to tell if it’s really Edgar, or just an Edgar suit, is to prod the person with absolutes. Marxists are absolutists. A case in point. Another individual explained to me that healthcare ought to be a human right. Every human should have it upon need. I pointed out the usual inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, the long waiting lists, the poor quality of VA care, and the general lack of innovation and creativity in government-run healthcare.

The thing is, the guy agreed with me on many of those things. But he countered with “but if you don’t make it a right, somebody might not get the care they need, and I just can’t support that.” It doesn’t matter if the care would be better for 99.9% of everyone else. If one single person went without needed care, he would judge it a failure.

You see this kind of argument from Marxists all the time. You could destroy entire countries with mass immigration, but if one refugee child suffered, then too bad, too sad. You must do it. Get used to British citizens speaking Arabic, you racist.

It’s the same kind of argument you hear from gun control advocates.”If it saves the life of just one child,” they will say, “it will all be worth it.” Or, “even one shooting is too many.” Marxist absolutism, again. Somebody is wearing an Edgar suit.

MADD is a great case in point. Originally founded to combat drunk driving, an honorable pursuit, the founder wound up leaving a few years later, because the organization had become a group of tyrannical neo-prohibitionists, not merely a group concerned with reducing drunk driving offenses. Soon it was receiving government money, advocating for Traffic Safety Funds (more government cash), and arguing for everything from a rash of checkpoints, to mandatory interlock devices on all automobiles — not just those owned by those convicted of alcohol-related offenses.

MADD is an Edgar suit. Scratch the surface, and you’ll find a bunch of Marxists.

The thing is, if Marxists were open about their Marxism, that is to say if the giant alien cockroach were seen as a giant alien cockroach, every normie on the planet would be trying to squash it. It you saw the bodies of the Stalin regime, the starvation of Mao’s regime, the killings of Pol Pot… you would want to stamp this thing out with every fiber of your being.

Bug

Charming fellow, right?

But when attacked, when someone starts to suspect an organization is full of Marxists, they retreat into the Edgar suit. Hi. I’m Edgar. Nice to meet you. And my goal is just to try and help reduce drunk driving deaths!

Do you know why Marxists like absolutism so much? Why even a 99.9% success rate is not good enough for them? Because it gives them an excuse to continue to exist. No human society will ever reach 100% of anything. There will always be people who are poor, people who don’t get the care they need, people who die senselessly, idiots who get drunk and wreck someone’s life. Always.

Reducing the incidence of those things is a good and noble pursuit. But they can never be stopped completely. By saying that nothing is good enough unless it has a 100% success rate, the Marxist is giving himself power for life, and his organization power forever. Because so long as one person slips through the cracks, he can say “my work is not done yet.”

But the single-minded focus of Marxists on power politics is a good tell. Absolutism can tell you if someone is a Marxist, but so can an over-reliance on the language of political power. Normal people might talk politics for a while, even rant about it as I do here, but there are also times when they just don’t care about politics at all.

Marxists want to bring politics into everything. Are you eating a plate of Chinese takeout? Cultural Appropriation. Do you drive a nice car? Privilege! Do you like your hair a certain way? Racism! Everything must involve politics with them. They cannot stop thinking about their obsession for even the briefest of moments. At some point, a normie is likely to talk about his dog, or his kid, or how much he likes beer, or something totally unrelated to politics. The Marxist, on the other hand, will find a way to steer that back.

Another Edgar Suit tell is an obsession with personal bias. Like the 100% success rate demands, the Marxist demands absolute objectivity on the part of others (while displaying none himself). Unless you can demonstrate proof of moral perfection and a completely unbiased, objective viewpoint, you can be dismissed because you’re biased. The data underlying it is irrelevant, because the collector is biased. For instance, if you said that black people in the United States committed a greater per capita share of violent crimes than white people, that is a true statement. The Marxist would say that you are biased against black people, thus your conclusion (whatever it may be) can be dismissed on that basis. Forget the facts.

The same standard, of course, is never applied to them. But again, it makes an impossible demand so that a permanent political bludgeon is created, which they can beat you over the head with constantly.

There are probably many more such tells (if you’ve got one, drop it in the comments), but those are the ones I’ve seen most frequently, and most obviously. And it’s very important to identify which groups and institutions are SJW-converged, which ones are Edgar suits filled with Marxist cockroaches, and which ones are not. Rightists have permitted bad actors to continue to be treated like good actors merely because they skinned an organization of good actors alive, and wore them like a suit. It’s both stupid, and disservice to the memory of those who created the original, non-converged organization.

Women’s Day Lunacy

Just a quickie for today. Over at Sarah’s place, I read this little gem:

Look, it’s not my fault.  I was bit by International Socialism as a child and it’s the sort of thing that causes an allergy for life.  Oh, yeah, and International ANYTHING day is a socialist thing, because they never fully realized that they didn’t control the whole world.  Or they didn’t care and just wanted to make their rubes believe they were worldwide.  The Happy People of Brutopia celebrated whatever day they were ordered, and they marched in orderly ranks past the red draped stands, and Socialism would Conquer the WORLD.

Right.  So that was part of why I blew up.  I hate “International” this and that, and the idea behind it.  Whatever good it is supposed to do never actually works where needed, and it does very bad things everywhere else.

It’s true. International (insert thing here) is almost invariably a Socialism thing. If there was an International Shoe Shiner’s Day, I’d presume the shoe shiners in question were probably Commies. Workers of the World Unite! That’s the rallying cry. Only, since the Frankfurt school popularized the idea of scapegoating various demographic groups as privileged, or whatever, they now have more flexibility in slogan generation.

Women of the world unite! Not-white people of the world unite (white people go away)! Transgendered people of the world unite! Muslim lesbian genderqueer androgynous robot anime furries of the world unite!

Whatever. Leftist agitprop has become functionally retarded. I can’t believe people still legitimately fall for this bullshit. But RadFems are full of contradictions. Observe:

CQ_7u1_WEAAt0Jg

Yeah… I got nothing.

RadFems are all up in arms when a man holds open a door, or for whatever reason (probably blindness), when he shows any kind of sexual interest in them. But they are silent about Islamic oppression of women. Yes, I know, it’s a tired cliche. Us rightists always talk about Islam when RadFems start complaining about this or that. But it’s true.

I’ve spoken at length about the darker side of the feminist psyche, how they actually crave oppression. Just not, it should be noted, from you. The barbarian bad boys outside the gate are much more interesting, I suppose. That’s why Islam gets a pass, and why the nastiest, most violent assholes in the club walk away with swooning feminists, arm-in-arm, dedicated fighters of the patriarchy taking a break by letting some thug have his way with them.

In essence, the woman above is asking for it. Just not, it should be noted, from you. Where’s her romantic migrant-in-whatever-jihadis-wear to enslave her and honor-kill her?

International Socialism is full of such contradictions. The Progressive stack is confused about who is the greater victim, the white woman, or the black gay man? What if the woman is a Muslim, or the black man of Hispanic descent? These are the great conundrums of the left, the questions that burn in their psyches, underneath layers of pink pussy hats.

A Day Without Women, they said. No, no. There are plenty of women. I imagine Sarah Hoyt kept on writing, and, of course, my wife cooked up some good buffalo wings for dinner yesterday. My friend, who is an MD, went to work, same as always, caring for her patients (I imagine many of them were women, also). No, it wasn’t a day without women. It was a day without Socialist RadFems. Society did not crumble, we didn’t lose power, starve to death, or suffer great tragedy. The bulk of America hardly even noticed their absence. And, to be frank, I wish we had more days like that.

Ideological Subversion

Many of my readers have already seen Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov’s videos on ideological subversion, but on the off chance some of you have not, take a gander at this:

The stereotype of the KGB was that of a spy agency, a sort of spook counterpart to the CIA. But in reality, their primary weapon was ideological subversion, the deconstruction and brainwashing of a people, such that they can no longer come to sensible conclusions about anything. To use a modern and practical example, the human species has two genders, male and female, and an exceptionally small number of individuals who have very specific physical abnormalities (XXY/Klinefelter syndrome, for instance), who possess traits of both to varying degrees. Another small subset of individuals have a desire to be the opposite gender, but they were nonetheless born male, or female.

Ideological subversion has set into the culture to such a great degree, that stating the simple truth that there are only two genders is enough to incur the wrath of most of Academia, and one of America’s two major political parties.

You’ll notice that in this short video, Yuri places a timetable on ideological subversion, and this timetable is fixed around generations of students. Infiltration of Academia is how the KGB initially demoralized and subverted the American system. Now of course the KGB is gone now, and whatever Putin’s KGB past and Russian nationalistic ambitions, he does not appear to be behind the ideological subversion taking place today. Indeed, the previously-subverted are the ones most likely doing the subversion today, like a mad scientist project gone haywire.

The students subverted back in the 1960s still occupy many positions of power today, but they are falling by the wayside. Today’s academics are arguably worse  than the generation that preceded them. Yuri explains that they are programmed to think and react in certain ways, to certain stimuli. They are trained like Pavlov’s dog. When someone cries “racist” they are trained to initiate a Maoist struggle session. When someone cries “rape” they are trained to believe the accusation in the face of all available evidence to the contrary. Virtue signalling is the method by which they communicate and relay relative status, and their position in the Progressive hierarchy.

To quote Yuri: “the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.” You can’t reason with them anymore, because they don’t listen to reason. They listen to virtue signalling, to NewSpeak. It is instructive to view them as speaking an almost entirely different language. Communication is extraordinarily difficult. Conversion is impossible.

They are useful idiots, however. Yuri also tells us that when these people see the true fruits of equality and social justice, they will revolt. The subverters know this. The people in power will want to dispose of the idiots as soon as they are finished with us. They are a tool of the enemy, no more, no less.

Sadly, Yuri was ultimately proven to be correct. Though the Soviet Union collapsed of its own internal contradictions, the ideological subversion of the United States was already largely complete. That is why, 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism still commands such great respect from the Left and has, in many ways, become much more virulent than it was in Reagan’s day. The infection is even within us, dear readers. I will provide some psychological examples for you.

When I say “nationalist” what is the first thing that comes to mind? For most Americans, nationalism is tainted by Nazism. Any mention of nationalism brings up images of fascists, and genocidal maniacs, and racial supremacists. Why? Nationalists, i.e. people who love their country and its people, have been around since the dawn of civilization. Nationalism is neither inherently good, nor evil. It merely is. Certainly it can be used for evil purposes, as the Nazis did. But it can also be used for good purposes, as used by the patriots of the American Revolution. Yet the word is irrevocably tainted. That is ideological subversion at work. Pride in your country brings feelings of guilt, for things you have never done, nor would ever countenance yourself.

When the accusation of racism is leveled at a person, the first instinct is usually defensive in nature. It is to attempt to prove that you are not guilty of the charge. You might point to a friend of the race in question, or in one of my friend’s cases, his very own wife. And then you say “see, I can’t be a racist, because I genuinely like these people.” No, this is ideological subversion at work. The charge should be dealt with in the exact opposite manner. One ought to say “prove it! Prove your claim that I am racist.” They’ve no proof — they almost never do. The accusation is a political weapon designed to discredit you. Alternatively, you can also respond as I’ve suggested in the past with “fuck you.” That works, too. Francis at Liberty’s Torch, has suggested saying something along the lines of “well, by your definition, fine, I’m a racist. Now what?”

Being defensive plays into their hands, for they can say “see, he feels bad, that’s why he’s being defensive about it, more evidence that he’s a racist!” Saying “prove it” won’t work on them and their ilk, of course. But it will work for those who are not entirely subverted. Those who still adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty will get it right away.

Nonetheless, the guilty feeling, the horror at being called a racist, is a form of ideological subversion. You don’t want to be seen as one, because the culture at large has told you how horrible it is, and so you do everything you can to not appear racist. This is a weapon that was tried on me very recently.

The thing to understand here, is that when you feel a sort of guilt or revulsion when you know you shouldn’t — because you are not guilty of the crimes in question — that’s probably ideological subversion at work. This is everything from your school teachers to mass media attempting to control your thinking, to make you question your own beliefs at an emotional level rather than a rational one, while applying no such critique to theirs.

The thing that still confuses me, however, is the end goal. Yuri was worried it would be a prelude to Soviet attack through more direct means. Obviously that is no longer a possibility. Yet we are seeing the destabilization right now, the unprecedented resistance to Trump’s administration. We see even semi-serious calls for secession in places like California.

So who is waiting to take power, should Trump fail? Thoughts?

%d bloggers like this: