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?

Virtue Signalling: Game Theory’s Cheat Code

So I have returned from my short little vacation, a free trip to Las Vegas, gambling mecca extraordinaire. Of course, I’m not inclined to gamble, because the house always wins in the end. But we had a great time going to some shows, meeting some old friends, and enjoying the break from work.

Nonetheless, the gambling environment is instructive in human nature. People know that they will lose money, they know the odds are stacked against them, and they play anyway. Even if the house advantage is razor slim, as in Black Jack, repeated often enough the house still wins.

Democracy in America operates under a similar principle. The primary purpose of a biased media is not to prevent a right-wing victory per se, but rather to give the house (the Democrats) better odds. The same is true of our Leftist education establishment, celebrity figures spouting mealy-mouthed Marxist platitudes, and so on. Even now, with desperate plays by Jill Stein to force recounts in the Rust Belt, and with SJWs harassing Republican electors and fantasizing about the electoral college putting up John Kasich as an alternative… we are seeing nothing more than last minute, desperate plays by the house to recover from a loss they didn’t expect.

Yes, the house always wins the war in the end. But they still lose individual battles, individual hands, and this one cost them big time. You might even look at Donald Trump as a card counter. He knew the game the house plays, because he was part of the house.

So full media, education, and cultural control is sufficient to give the house an advantage, but not enough of one. Certainly not enough to bankrupt us as quickly as they would prefer. So another means was identified and created in recent years: Virtue Signalling.

If you are familiar with Game Theory’s Prisoners’ Dilemma, you know that the ideal result for the individual is to betray while the other sucker confesses. But the ideal result for both as a whole is to cooperate, and for each to receive very little punishment.


The numbers used often vary, but here is the basic matrix.

Virtue Signalling is the cheat code to Game Theory. It is how politicians, SJWs, and other assorted tyrants on planet Earth have managed to short-circuit the rational self-interest of people in Western countries. It uses political correctness as a bludgeon with which to force you into a default state of “cooperate”. Knowing that you will usually choose “cooperate” due to political pressure, they are then free to “defect” whenever they wish, leaving them with all the benefits, and you with all the costs.

It would be like playing poker where you had to show your hand (because Social Justice, or whatever excuse is in fashion at the moment), and the other player could keep his hand secret.

It must have been a consistent problem for tyrants throughout history. How do you get a theoretically democratic populace to vote consistently against their own rational self-interest, and in favor of your own? Control of education was one natural step, of course. If you fill the heads of impressionable young people with Communist “end of history” claptrap, they can be counted upon to vote your way for a while out of ignorance, at least. But reality quickly intrudes…

The quote falsely attributed to Churchill (it may have actually originated with Edmund Burke) explains for us:

If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.

So propagandizing education only works for a while. Virtue Signalling political correctness is a much more consistent weapon, because it can also be used against people who know better, but are merely afraid to speak up due to the probable consequences to career, family life, and friendship.

You better show your poker hand, pleb, or else you’re an evil-mean-bad person, and you’ll lose your job. Virtue Signalling is your warning that you are treading too close to “defect” and you better “cooperate”. No such restriction applies to the other side of the bargain.

Virtue Signalling forces a default setting of “Keep Faith” even when the person knows they will be betrayed. It forces “Keep Faith” with mass Islamic immigration even when most terror comes from an Islamic source. It forces “Keep Faith” even when illegal immigrants and Islamic migrants bring in diseases previously eradicated in America, when many use the people-smuggling routes for drugs, weapons, and cartel activities. It forces “Keep Faith” with thugs, criminals and malcontents.

Why? Because anything other than Keep Faith is hate, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, otherkinphobia, and whatever bigot buzzword bonanza the SJW Left decides is the cause-of-the-minute.

At this point, I cannot conceive of anything that any Leftist victim group could possibly do that would diminish them in any way in the eyes of the Left. If Islamists nuked an American city, they would still say that Islam is a religion of peace. If a repeat of the LA riots occurred, and another Reginald Denny was pulled out of his truck and beaten near to death, the sympathies of the Left would still be with the poor, disenfranchised thugs, not the truck driver, who would still be accounted as having white privilege. And if a woman raped a man (yes, it is possible), radical feminists would celebrate the crime as a great step forward for women’s rights.

Keep Faith. Cooperate. Obey.

They may as well say: “always lose.”

Life is not a zero-sum game, or at least it shouldn’t be, but the Left plays it that way. Their entire ideology is built around it. Marxism is an economic zero-sum ideology. Social Justice is a social zero-sum ideology. And, as the house, they seek to maximize their personal gain from it. They are the house, The Man, the Establishment, whatever you want to call it. And we are the poor slobs dumping money into the slots by the bucket load. And on top of all that, they still cheat.

Only, unlike my trip to Vegas, there is no option to say “no thanks, I don’t feel like playing a rigged game.”

Deconstruction: SJW Intellectual Laziness

SJWs and other radical Leftists are incapable of building institutions, of creating, producing, or inventing anything. However, they are very adept at taking control of such things already built and then destroying them. The question is, why would anyone want to do that?

Answer: deconstruction is intellectual laziness. There is a popular notion that demeaning other people, bringing them down, doesn’t help your own cause any. In other words, sinking someone else’s boat won’t raise yours any higher out of the water. But it is often easier to damage someone else, than help yourself.

Progressivism is the same phenomenon writ large. Progressives will find fracture points in your own institution following (often instinctively) the Alinsky rules. Perhaps, for example, your church isn’t living up to Biblical proscriptions. Or perhaps it is doing fine, but in so doing it is violating several popularly-accepted cultural norms. A case in point would be an openly homosexual priest. Either you violate church tradition, or you anger pop culture.

A fracture point like this allows them to undermine your church. But they won’t stop there. Suppose they destroy your church. They will need a new cause, a new thing to destroy. Perhaps the entire Christian religion will come next. SJWs keep digging. If they banned guns today, tomorrow they would demand knife bans. They are busybodies constantly in search of the next cause, the next thing to destroy.

Underneath it all, SJWs believe in nothing. They don’t even believe in the existence of objective reality. They have tunneled so far underneath the foundations of Western Civilization, they have gone all the way through to whether or not anything exists at all.

What’s fascinating is that SJWs think they are clever and original, as if they are the first to ponder whether or not reality is actually real. They are unaware that they have tread upon philosophical matters discussed — and rejected — thousands of years ago. Plato attempted to formulate the First Principles, assumptions that must be held true if anything else is to proceed at all. And one of those principles is that the universe does, in fact, exist. Of course, his Allegory of the Cave also postulates that reality may not necessarily be as we think it to be.

But, the point is, objective reality exists. If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, it did, in fact, make a sound.

SJWs deny all of this. Everything is as you personally perceive if to be. Reality is entirely subjective to them. This allows them to deconstruct physical gender. The sexes do not exist, says the SJW, because someone feels differently. Nothing is truly real, except one’s own emotional state. And even there, SJWs deny that Free Will exists.

The point is, since SJWs believe nothing is truly real, then it follows there is no real consequence to destroying anything and everything. If it feels good, do it. It’s like a child’s version of Nihilism. This person feels bad. Purge him. That person feels good. Welcome her.

I remember reading one of Tom Kratman’s essays, and he posited that whether or not God exists, religion is objectively responsible for strengthening the resolve of a people. I.e. don’t bring secularism to a religious war. It is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight. This is an affirmation of objective reality, that consequences do exist, and that faith, regardless of its validity, has a positive real-world effect.

SJWs would deny all of this and then deconstruct Christianity (because that’s all they can do) as a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, and then be bewildered when people wind up choosing a different religion instead (or getting conquered by another one), because Nihilism and denial of objective reality doesn’t fill the human need for purpose. Humans crave a purpose, and if they don’t get it from one religion, it is likely that they will get it from something else — possibly worse.

Or, as an extension of Col. Kratman’s analogy, even if reality is not objective, there is utility in acting as if it were, which circles around to Plato’s First Principles, assumptions that must be held true if one is to avoid finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

Of course, it didn’t end with Plato. Immanuel Kant, Jakob Fries, and Karl Popper extended on the First Principles concept, attempting to find a stronger metaphysical base. But nonetheless, they also predicate the existence of objective reality. None of this is exactly new.

SJWs keep tunneling through the foundations of everything. Gender doesn’t exist. Neither does race, except when it is convenient that it exist, like when saying whites owe everyone else money. Homosexuality is morally superior to heterosexuality, because they wish it to be. Western men are all practitioners of rape culture. Actual rapists imported from the third world are not, because SJWs don’t wish them to be. Communism is good because it feels fair. All the evil attributed to Communism does not exist because they don’t wish it to.

Unfortunately, the train of thought that can bring one to a denial of objective reality is remarkably insidious. Consider this quotation:

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

This seems pretty straightforward on its own. If it is real, it exists. And if it is not real, it does not exist. Knowing what is real and what is not real will give you peace. That’s the literal truth of the quotation. But observe this woman’s take on it:

As I read this passage, it seems to me that we are encouraged, once again, to see that the world in which we live in illusion. It is not real, and therefore does not truly exist. The real, in my view, are the intangibles of hope, love, joy, peace, and the like. These cannot be taken from us except by our choice. And when we are in our right minds, we choose to keep these blessings in our hearts.

We have the peace of God when we have His intangibles.

She takes this to mean that the world does not exist, and only intangible feelings exist. What feels hopeful, joyous, peaceful, etc… is good and real. Everything else is illusion. Peace is found when you see the world as illusion, and God as real.

She has failed to note that it is possible to believe both are real. That objective reality exists, but the intangibles of God, even though we cannot grasp them in our hands, also exist. I don’t think this woman is an SJW, but this demonstrates how easy it is to wind up denying reality actually exists at all. When only emotions remain, you will be driven to deconstruct and destroy everything that does not feel good.

And here’s the kicker, dear readers. Everything and everyone will disappoint you. You will disappoint yourself. Your friends will disappoint you. Your spouse, your children, your boss, your coworkers, everything and everyone in life will, at some point, cause you grief. Thus you arrive at the seemingly-absurd proposition of the Progressive Left: everything is sexism, everything is racism, everything is homophobia, because everyone does wrong, everyone sins, everyone fails. This is why Progressivism lacks internal consistency. It is based on whatever you feel at this particular moment. Since your feelings on anyone and anything will change, so does Progressivism. And anything that makes you feel bad right now is evil, you are a victim of that evil.

It is such a philosophical and intellectual failure that it has, in essence, surrendered all knowledge, all human experience in the last several thousand years, for the simplistic notion that the only provable fact is that you exist, right now, in this particular moment. And therefore, says Progressivism, only your feelings right now have any meaning at all. Do you feel like you were unfairly discriminated against? It must be true because you feel it.

This is how a Hell Dumper like Zoe Quinn, who provably and objectively harassed and demeaned people in a near-professional capacity can call herself the victim. She doesn’t feel like she ever did anything wrong to anyone and, rather, feels as if everyone else wronged her. The Social Justice community rallied around her because all of them also felt wronged. Whether or not they were objectively harmed is irrelevant, because they believe objective reality is a social construct.

I don’t think any human being is truly capable of fully perceiving reality in an objective manner. That is what separates us from the truly divine. But humans can acknowledge that objective reality does exist, even if they are incapable of perfectly perceiving it, even if the Allegory of the Cave still holds true to some degree. Denial of objective reality leads to absurdity, to a complete disconnect between actions and consequences.

You could murder millions in the name of the Socialist Revolution, but if it feels fair, then it is good, right? Denial of objective reality ultimately means the denial of objective morality, also. So I shall modify the earlier quotation, as it accords with Social Justice:

Nothing you feel can be threatened.
Nothing real exists.
Herein lies the peace of slavery.

That is as good a mantra for the SJWs as I can conceive of.

Marxism is Fatalism

I’ve spoken at length on the subject of Free Will before. And I’ve long suspected that, at its core, this is the chief difference between political worldviews. I am a Christian, a Conservative with Libertarian sympathies, and many other things that modern society has deemed evil and hateful. Yet I can find common cause with certain Atheists, Centrists, and even the occasional Leftist. And I have found instinctive distaste for many of my supposed Conservative compatriots.

What separates those I can get along with from those I cannot? In a nutshell, it is Free Will.

Marxist dialectic claims to be the end of history, a sort of Seldonian calculus that predicts all human interaction, forever. When, naturally, such a complex and dynamic system like humanity fails to conform to Marx’s vision, force had to be imposed.

But the rationale for such force is fascinating. Because the Marxist believes in determinism, he can excuse his actions likewise. He didn’t kill tens of millions, history did. The revolution did. It was fated to happen, it was predetermined by the needs of the revolution, itself the inevitable progression of events.

Then, Marxists claim moral superiority as a result. Anything which conforms to the progression of history is, by definition, moral. Anything that does not is immoral.

Racism, sexism, homophobia and a thousand other ills touted by the Cultural Marxists are deemed as inevitable consequences of the Capitalist-Imperialist system They categorically MUST be. Anita Sarkeesian explained that everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic, because it is not functionally identical in all respects. If I look at a woman and think a different thought than if I had seen a man in the same circumstances I am, by definition, a sexist. A malfunctioning throwback impeding the progress of the Marxist utopia.

Victims, in Cultural Marxism, bear no individual responsibility for their circumstances. The poor are poor because they were oppressed. It has nothing to do with bad choices, because choice doesn’t exist, because Free Will doesn’t exist. Nothing is their fault, everything is viewed in the context of the “system of oppression.”

Marxism seeks to eliminate even what it defines as the illusion of Free Will. You did not make a choice. Your brain’s chemical reactions combined with the results of previous events synthesized the precise circumstances which brought your ‘decision’ about. Since you cannot decide, you are not really a sentient being, possessing a soul. You are a cog in the system of history. Eliminating you, if you are malfunctioning, is no great moral burden.

The hostility of Marxism to Christianity is based on the notion that Christ explicitly tells us that we have Free Will. We may choose him, or deny him, as we see fit. It is a choice, God gave us that power. This is fundamentally at odds with the Marxist view of the inevitability of history.

Interestingly enough, however, Islam is similar to Marxism in the denial of Free Will. In Islam, all is the will of Allah. Allah chooses whether the bullet hits its target, not you. Allah chooses the winners and the losers. And if one fails in his quest, it is not because of insufficient preparation, or lack of talent, experience, etc… It is because one was not devoted enough to Allah, and did not obtain his support. So Islam gets caught in a vicious cycle where each defeat prompts further religious radicalism. Al Qaeda gives way to ISIS.

Marxism is similar, except that it worships no God. Each failure is due to insufficient Marxism. More purity is needed. More devotion to the revolution is required. So Marxism gets caught in the same vicious cycle, and millions of dead bodies are (ironically) the nearly-inevitable result.

Despite a degree of mutual hostility, this makes Islam and Marxism tacit allies against Christianity and other belief systems that integrate the notion of Free Will. Free Will says that you are responsible for your own actions. Marxism and Islam both claim that the individual is responsible for nothing.

So when it comes down to it, that is the difference between those individuals who, even if I disagree with, I can get along with, and those I cannot. If you believe in Free Will and personal responsibility, there is common ground between us. If you do not, even if you individually agreed with me on all issues (unlikely, of course, but still), we will be enemies.

Politics as a Triangle, Not a Line

Political ideologies and alignments tend to be thought of in two different manners. The first, and most simplistic is the Left-Right alignment. It is a simple line. There are only two sides, but it is possible to be anywhere on the spectrum between the two poles.


This clearly has limitations.

In this paradigm, Fascism is regard as a Right-wing phenomenon. And Libertarianism is regarded as a step toward fascism? That doesn’t track with reality. If Conservatives are for some authority, and Libertarians for much less than Conservatives, how does that become a step toward authoritarian dictatorship?

Nonetheless, there is a simplistic utility in the Left/Right alignment. There is something different about those we call Right-wing as compared to those we call Left-wing.

So an alternate method of tracking political alignment was created, a two-axis system, whereby economic freedom is separated from personal freedom. This makes a little more sense.


This makes a little more sense, but still suffers from a problem.

In this, we now see that Fascism is not a Right-wing phenomenon, but more of a mixed/centrist economic system (partially Socialist) combined with maximum authoritarianism. It is now much further from Libertarianism, and much closer to Communist Dictatorship, with which it shares many characteristics. We also see a divide between American Republicans and American Libertarians.

But this system still suffers from a major limitation. People still tend to track Left/Right on this chart. Observe:


Ignore for a moment that Obama is considered “Right wing” here. This is because other countries are very far Left, even compared to American Leftists.

So, aside from a few outliers like Stalin and Friedman, most of these people still track on a vaguely Left/Right axis. It’s just skewed a little differently than we imagined initially. So there’s something we’re still missing. And before you think this is because of sample size, observe this chart:


Even with a bunch of random people mixed with famous people, we see that vague Left/Right line. So what is going on here?  The simplest explanation is that the two-axis system still doesn’t represent the real ideological spread. But if a single axis doesn’t capture it, and two seems to be too many, what does represent it?

I posit that what we really have is a political triangle. In speaking with a dear friend yesterday, it was explained that European Right-wingers are fundamentally different than American Right-wingers. It’s currently the focus of a point of contention between Vox Day and Sarah Hoyt (both of whom I highly respect).

It occurred to me that the dispute may be partially resolved with the political triangle. Observe:


Ah-HA! Now we are getting somewhere.

Now what we see here is interesting, because what we think of as “the Right” is actually two separate and distinct groups. An Authoritarian Right, which is amicable to Monarchism and/or Fascism, and an Individualist Right which, while equally despising the Left, is also distinctly opposed to the intractability of monarchs. In simple terms, if George Washington were alive in the modern age, he would dislike modern Leftists as much as he did contemporary Monarchists.

The American right gravitates more toward the Individualist side, while the European Right gravitates closer to the Authoritarian side. That explains how I can read both Vox and Sarah and, paradoxically, agree with both of their conclusions on this matter.

The Left, however, remains more or less the same. What we think of as Cultural Libertarian Leftists are actually something a little different.

This can also be seen as something a little more simplistic. Replace Communism with “Matriarchy” or “Mother” and Absolutism with “Patriarchy” or “Father.” Then leave Individualism alone, it is exactly that. You will see that, in very basic terms, Communism proposes to be your Mother. All must be provided by the State, who acts as this parent. It is the omnipresent helicopter mother, watching you constantly, ensuring you have the right thoughts, free care, free everything. But it keeps you as a prisoner, also. You can’t play with that. You can’t think that, or do that. All that is permitted is mandatory.

Absolutism proposes to be your Father. As such, it is a more distant sort of power, yet all the more absolute because of it. All that is not permitted must be punished. Absolutism proposes to leave you alone unless you trespass on what are often arbitrary and bizarre prohibitions. And when you break these rules, punishment is ruthless and painful. It is a state which rules by force alone. Obey, or else. But, on the flip side of that, it doesn’t have quite the omnipresent Orwellian nature of the Motherly state either. It doesn’t care if you starve or thrive. In simple political terms, it is perfectly possible for a monarch to also be a capitalist.

Another observation is that the Motherly state is inherently Globalist. It’s the mom saying “can’t we all just get along and share?” The Fatherly state is inherently Nationalist: “this is mine, go away or I will kick your ass.”

C.S. Lewis explains the distinction for us:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

The Father figure is the Robber Baron, and the Mother figure the Moral Busybody. And to be fair, it is generally preferable to have the Robber Baron over the Moral Busybody. In fact, as my friend argued, the Robber Barons are, in effect, the default state of humanity. If you take a pile of random humans and dropped them onto a deserted island, you are likely to see hierarchical organization naturally develop like this. The Motherly state must be imposed against human nature.

But where the Robber Baron is preferable to the Moral Busybody, it is not a good. And just because it is the default state of mankind doesn’t mean other states are impossible. America managed, at least for a short time, to remove itself from that paradigm. Arguably the Greeks and Romans partially achieved this during parts of their history, also.

Personally, I neither desire a Mother figure, or a Father figure, in state form. In so much as a government must exist, I desire it to perform only one primary function: to keep the country free from either form of tyranny. But if I am required to choose between the Mother figure and the Father figure, I do find the latter somewhat preferable to the former, for the reasons C.S. Lewis explained.

However, again, my friend explained that this may not necessarily be true. Insofar as the Absolutist form of government may be preferable to the Communist, it is also more sticky. Since Communism defies human nature, and categorically must collapse of its own weight of inefficiency, it will fail more quickly and provide an opening for Individualism. Whereas Absolutism can be sustained more or less forever, being the default state of man. Even when an Absolutist government falls, it is most often replaced with a new form of Absolutism. There is a reason, after all, that Francisco Franco reinstated the monarchy.

In the current political battles, the Absolutists and the Individualists are making common cause, to some limited extent, against the expansion of the Communists. And so the Left/Right divide appears as a line, in some fashion. But supposing the Communists are defeated, the Absolutists and the Individualists will, themselves, have it out.

Indeed, they already are to great extent. Trump gave the Absolutists a figure around which to rally (this is a very new concept for American politics, but more common for Europeans), and they have attracted the ire of the Individualists.

The problem with this? The Communists haven’t been defeated yet.

More to come.

The Consequences of Weaponized Empathy

Normally, you’ll find that I don’t care much for France, or the French. The fact remains that in recent years they have always been one of the weaker links in the chain of Western civilization. It’s a case of too much Nicholas Sarkozy and too little Charles Martel. Prior to World War II, they were waffling on fascism themselves. They did little to prevent their neighbors, Spain and Italy, from falling into the same. During the war, the conflict between the French Resistance and the Vichy France regime took on the character of a Civil War. Where Britain, at the last possible moment, discovered competence and national resolve, the French failed to do so.

France was perfectly happy to hide behind NATO and the United States during the Cold War and, in the World War that rages today, between the West and Islam, France has waffled, leading the charge to let in as many Muslims as possible. Angela Merkel may have resolved to catch up to France, but so far, France leads the charge, as they have in the past, to civilizational surrender.

All that being said, the attack upon Paris is nonetheless a great tragedy. It was avoidable, to be sure, as one of the attackers was found with a Syrian passport. He had, apparently, passed through Greece in the recent tidal wave of immigration.

I’ve spoken at length about this. Officials from Jordan even took it upon themselves to warn us of this possibility. Nobody was listening, it seems. ISIS told us, point-blank, that they were seeding the refugees with fighters. 70% of the immigrants were military-age men. There were red flags and warnings all over, and they were ignored.

And so, here we are.

Photographs of children dying, drowned on the beach, were used to move us. Weaponized Empathy was deployed in the service of bringing as many Muslims as possible to the West.

Why are we so vulnerable to this tactic? Having empathy for fellow human beings is good and well, and a part of being civilized. At the same time, understanding that it is not carte blanche is important here.

I’ve been accused of being racist against Middle Eastern peoples. This is lunacy. I am of Middle Eastern descent myself. I am not self-loathing, as many of my SJW enemies appear to be. I’ve been accused of hating Islam. That’s closer to the truth, but even then, I loathe the ideology not the common people, which is a distinction that must be made.

But even if I do not hate the common Muslim man, neither do I wish to allow him into my country. Why? Because a significant fraction of his compatriots are threats, and there is no way short of mind-reading to determine who is good and righteous, and who is evil. The proportion of Muslims who support terrorism and wish to force the rest of the world to convert to Islam or die is too great.

I was reading the other day that 45% of American Muslims desire Sharia Law, and prefer it to Constitutional Law. You might say “but Dystopic, what about the 55% majority who don’t?” Well, good for them. Is the advantage of having that 55% worth the cost of having 45% who are actively disloyal to the Constitution of the United States? I do not view diversity as a good. At best, it is neutral, neither here nor there, as they’d say. At worst, it is as Vox Day is fond of saying: Diversity + Proximity = War.

So diversity alone is not justification for importing Muslims, and it certainly does not justify the risk to the people already here.

You might say, well so far only two of the refugees are confirmed terrorists (there are actually more, but more on that later). Well, good for them. Why import people when you know for a fact that some of them are, in effect, waging WAR against you? The empathy is misplaced. People welcome the invaders with open arms, welcoming their own doom.

They value Muslim migrants more than their own kin. There is an argument made that failing to offer equality, or equivalence, between those who are closer to you ideologically, religiously, culturally, and ethnically, and those who are distant from you, is a quasi-criminal act. In other words, you are supposed to value equally the distant Zulu tribesman you’ve never met and your WASP neighbor who you’ve been friend with for 20 years. But this goes counter to human nature, generally, where there is a tendency to value those who are your kin in various respects over those who are not.

This need not become malevolent, as in a genocidal fascist regime. A minor preference for those who are like you is natural, and tends to cancel itself out anyway, because everybody else does it too. It doesn’t always work to your benefit.

Even so, the forced equality of the Progressives wasn’t enough for them. Because, they knew deep down, that people still had preferences. All things being equal, Christians had a mild preference for the company of other Christians. Blacks preferred the company of other Blacks to greater or lesser degree. Conservatives would rather hang out with each other than attend a Liberal fundraiser. Etc, etc… Crimethink, in other words, was still being practiced.

And so Social Justice demanded favorable treatment for non-kin. In essence, this meant deliberately favoring the out-group over the in-group. When a member of the out-group kills a member of the in-group, it isn’t murder (which they define as power + privilege + killing), it’s just a killing. Meanwhile, a member of the “privileged” group even looking at a woman might be “stare rape.” In the eyes of Social Justice, then, this isn’t even a terrorist attack, per se. It’s marginalized people of color striking back at the Privileged White Establishment. We made fun of their prophet, so they get to kill us.

I imagine this is very confusing for Muslims in general. It took them awhile to catch on to this phenomenon. But, once they did, they took maximum advantage of it. The Palestinians have been playing this game for decades now. Attack Israel (the equivalent of poking the bear), then play victim when Israel drops the hammer on them. If Israel really wanted to do it, they could annihilate every Palestinian in a matter of weeks.

But Israel doesn’t do it, and they are one of the most unashamedly ethnic-centered states in existence right now.

The West cannot be defeated through conventional arms, through state vs. state action, for it has absolutely mastered that style of warfare to such an extent even the Russians, the challenger in this arena, were hesitant to engage them. So, Fourth Generation warfare provided the solution: winning with the Moral High Ground.

The Social Justice Warriors are a fifth column in America, deliberately conspiring to bring down their own civilization. And their purpose is to bring as many people as possible who are hostile to their culture and civilization.

Let me repeat: the Social Justice Warriors WANT more terrorist attacks. They want more dead bodies. They want to kill Western Civilization entirely.

Islam also desires this, and so a tacit alliance of sort has revealed itself. Progressives in power conspire to bring in as many militant Muslims as possible, and the militant Muslims kill as many people as possible, wherever they think they can get away with it.

Of course, if Islam achieves ascendancy in the West, they will kill the Social Justice Warriors, as well, but as Yuri Bezmenov explained to us long ago, that’s a given anyway. Even if the Socialist Utopia they advocate were to come about instead of the Caliphate, the Socialists would kill the intellectuals as a matter of course.

Some of them, I imagine, know this deep down. They are self-loathing.

In effect, we have put the crazies who slit their own wrists in charge of our civilization, and then wonder why they keep importing crazies who want to kill us. They are suicidal, and want to take us with them.

Weaponized Empathy is the sword in their hands. See? Look at this dead child? Now, let in millions of military-age men who will kill the children of your cultural kin.

I’m not sure in what universe this makes sense, but there it is.

Are you afraid of being called a racist? A sexist? An Islamophobe? This is their club to beat you over the head with. It’s strange seeing people who I know are willing to die in the service of freedom caving because Progressives call them names. Yet it happens.

At this point, it is best to follow Francis Porretto’s advice and let them call you whatever they like.

In this way, I prefer the French, even though they waffle, and have been at the spearhead of this international Progressive movement, to the Islamics. They are Western cultural kin, even if they are the ugly step-child of the family.

More importantly, we must learn from their mistakes. I’ve already said that Europe now faces the most unpleasant of choices: Jackboots or Submission to Islam. America is fast-approaching the time when it must face a similar choice: Jackboots or National Suicide.

We must head off that conflict now, while there is still time. This is what must be done:

  1. Build a wall on all land borders. Defend the wall.
  2. Deport all illegal immigrants.
  3. Freeze all immigration from Muslim countries.
  4. Disallow the immigration of any Muslim from any country whatsoever.
  5. End the ‘anchor baby’ birthright citizenship phenomenon.
  6. Any Muslim caught preaching terrorism or support of terrorism must be deported immediately.
  7. Any Muslim who cannot declare unwavering loyalty to the Constitution of the United States (note: not the government) must have citizenship revoked. Stomping on the flag, burning, chanting anti-American slogans, etc… will be accepted as prima facie evidence of disloyalty. Deport to the Muslim country of their choice.
  8. Those Muslims that remain will be encouraged to assimilate and/or convert to a non-hostile faith with all possible social pressure. Personally, I suggest the Ba’hai faith for them if Christianity is unpalatable, as it may be regarded as a genuinely peaceful development of Islam which still accepts the prophethood of Mohammed. But pretty much anything non-Muslim will do.
  9. End all H1b Visa programs with regards to Muslim countries and those of Muslim faith.
  10. Severely restrict the Visas of any Muslim, allowing only limited, thoroughly vetted, individuals who are on specific business. I.e. diplomats, corporate representatives, etc…
  11. Do NOT “colonize” or otherwise occupy Muslim countries. Leave them alone if they leave us alone.
  12. If they do NOT leave us alone, kill their leaders, bomb their religious sites and depose their governments, then leave, don’t stay trying to build a secular Western-style democracy. They don’t want one. They don’t want us there. Punish the guilty and go. Do that once or twice, and even the most militant of Muslims will get the idea.

Following that plan will likely work for America. For Europe, it is far too late for that, there are too many Muslims there. Tom Kratman warned us in his book Caliphate, that Europe would eventually have to make this unpleasant decision.

It will come to genocide or submission there. Mark my words, the next few decades will see the fruits of Progressivism laid bare for what they are. This will be a warning to future generations that Weaponized Empathy is as dangerous as any bomb or invading army.

You defy human nature and notions of kinship at your own peril.

The French, unfortunately, had to learn the lesson of this through blood. And there will be more blood. The streets will run red, and the camps and ovens of World War II may see a revival. Whose ashes fall from the sky will be their choice.

I want my readers to know that, as I contemplate these matters, I feel a profound sadness. I remember reading books about the Holocaust when I was a child. And, of course, books about the Armenian genocide conducted against my own relatives.

I often wondered how things got so bad that people chose genocide over any other option, how people justified such evil in their minds. How could any non-psychopath sleep at night doing such deeds? How could a guard at a concentration camp go to his barracks at night, sleep, wake, eat breakfast, and then go on killing people like it was just another 9-5 job?

This is how. Progressives, we kept warning you, pleading you, begging you not to do this, not to open our borders like a sieve. Because we understand human nature. We knew where this was going to end up.

Multiculturalism is a disease. And if you do not seek peaceful forms of treatment, by defending your borders and avoiding substantial immigration from hostile countries and religions, you bring the disease to your shores. Even so, treatment at first is not very expensive. Cultural Assimilation can and does work for small numbers, and those who are relatively close to your cultural values already.

But mass migration is invasion. And Progressives discourage cultural assimilation, because they hate their own culture. They also prevent reverse assimilation (i.e. existing Americans assimilating in to the immigrant identities). They call THAT cultural appropriation. So there can be NO evening out or blending of the cultures.

They don’t want more defenders of Western Civilization. They don’t want another Thomas Sowell, they want more Al Sharptons. They don’t want people like my Armenian family. They want welfare recipients, junkies, drug dealers, leeches, mooches and people with axes to grind. Why? Because they want to slit the culture’s wrists, and those people are the blade.

And Weaponized Empathy is how they get the blade past security.

They want immigrants who think the American flag is a symbol of hate.

Paris, France. Coming soon (again) to an American city near you. Coming much sooner to Europe.

%d bloggers like this: