Tuesday Afternoon Errata

I had a long successor post on Marxism planned for today, but the workload is too much for that, presently. So enjoy a few little tidbits before we move on to Part 2.

First off, if you’re a regular reader of The Declination, you are no doubt familiar with Francis over at Liberty’s Torch. And today, he has reminded me in rather amusing fashion that he is, in fact, an engineer. After all, only an engineer would use a term like PDOOMA (Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass). He goes on at some length to discuss the problems with climate simulations, and why the ones currently utilized are likely to be about as accurate as a crystal ball at a trailer park psychic’s home. This would be amusing enough, but then he resurrects an old post from Eternity Road to tell us, at some length about PDOOMA, and how to tell when a bad actor is doing exactly that with his statistics.

I highly recommend both pieces. Between both posts, it explains almost every objection I have to the notion of “man-made climate change.”

Second, this morning I became aware of an interesting tizzy going down on Facebook. Jon Del Arroz, an up-and-coming conservative author, managed to rustle the jimmies of Mike Glyer, of Vile 770 fame. Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen soon joined in, with Mike Glyer periodically slinging insults at Larry, to the effect of how stupid everyone else was, and how smart and special Glyer himself was. Mike Glyer often tries to hide under a veneer of respectability, but his SJW instincts steered him badly off kilter today.

It’s all rather amusing stuff. Feel free to peruse and laugh. Naturally, I had a few contributions to the thread as well. Vile 770 is, in effect, an intellectual equivalent of a sewage treatment plant, where Mike Glyer tries to put a nice face on some very nasty Progressive characters, whose primary reason for posting at Vile 770 is to sling hate on conservative authors.

Francis talks about Garbage In, Garbage Out. Well, there’s Mike Glyer’s place for you, in a nutshell. Here is a reliably-informed diagram of the inner workings of File 770:


I’ll leave you with my own estimation of Mike Glyer’s intellectual prowess:

Also, it’s worth noting that Mike Glyer’s insults basically boil down to “neener neener, I’m smarter than you.” It’s the sort of childish taunting you’d hear in an elementary school playground. It’s also projection in its pure form.

You see, Mr. Glyer probably spent most of his youth getting smoke blown up his ass about how special he was, how beautiful and unique he was, like some kind of special snowflake. Now, reality came and ran over his puffed-up dreams like a goddamn freight train. Here men like Larry Correia and Jon Del Arroz do good for themselves, and Glyer has to be thinking “why can’t I be that good, I’m special, I’m smart, I’m a snowflake?”

Here’s a life lesson for you, sir. The people who blew smoke up your ass when you grew up were liars. Every damn one of them. All of the buttslurping pond scum at Vile770 are as useless as you are, sir. You’ve contributed nothing of value to this planet, certainly nothing worth getting paid the kind of money Larry makes. You are the architecture critic who never built a building, the movie critic who never held a camera, the political pundit who can’t even be bothered to crawl his lard-filled, twinkie-stuffing ass to the voting booth.

Socrates once explained that he couldn’t find a wise man, and he himself was not wise. But he was wiser than some for knowing this. And every time you crawl out from whatever cesspit you hail from and insult your betters, I am reminded that though I’m no great shakes in the success department either, compared to the likes of Larry, I’ve got one up on you for at least not being a pretentious, delusional fuckwit staring at my own reflection like Narcissus, with his face plastered and drunk in front of a toilet full of his own vile spew.

PDOOMA indeed.

On Marxism and Morality, Part 1

Many Americans have a near-instinctive loathing for Communism, both the word, and nations and leaders who have put it into practice. How many can articulate why it engenders such disgust?

SJWs and other assorted Marxists use the battle-cry “educate!” The assumption, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with Marxism is either uneducated or, somewhat less charitably, just so stupid as to be unable to grasp its nuances. Marxism, some have claimed, is itself something of a misnomer, for Marx did not expressly construct the ideology. He was, they say, merely a philosopher.

Whatever. Call the ideology whatever you wish, it still remains the same. My own familiarity with the ideology comes from a lifetime of learning from those who lived under it, including my own in-laws. In this, my education in Marxism has been rooted in practicality. What does this ideology produce when its adherents are granted power?

This is how most Americans approach the subject, for we are nothing if not a practical people. You can sell us on a shiny, stylish new car, and claim it is the greatest thing ever invented. But if it breaks down frequently, is expensive to maintain, and generally fails to do the job for which it was purchased, we account it as a shitty car. We treat Communism the same way. One might claim it is more fashionable and trendy, that it is a greater and more moral ideology than our own. But when we see it fail, in every time and place in which it has taken hold… Well, it doesn’t matter how good of a salesman you are, or how many times you say it wasn’t real Communism. The American will look upon it like the worst of lemons on the Buy Here, Pay Here lot.

Our intrepid, plaid-clothed salesman may claim that we are merely uneducated, for the car is loaded with the latest in technological progress, but the American pays him no mind. It’s not as if we haven’t heard that line a dozen times before. But when pressed, the American often has difficulty articulating precisely why views it as a lemon. “It just doesn’t work right,” might be the response. Or perhaps he will say “the sales guy sounded like a weasel, no thanks.”

The claim of uneducated has a ring of truth to it, which is why the dig is often so effective. An American might think “well, you’re right, I don’t know an awful lot about it. I just know it doesn’t work.”

So let’s pry the lid off Marxism a little bit and approach it from an everyman’s perspective, and see what we might find. Let’s dig in and see precisely why it is such a lemon. Where its failures are, and how we’ve come to the point where Marxism, despite being seemingly defeated in the Cold War, has come dangerously close to complete control over most of the Earth.

This will be an ongoing series, where I will select a passage from Marx’s Das Kapital and go over in detail what it means, and how it relates to our current situation. And rather than this being some kind of long-winded sociopolitical scholarly treatment, it will be plain, and written for the layman. There’s enough loaded jargon on Communism festering around on the Internet these days, after all. I’ve no desire to add to that particular landfill.

Here are two quotes for today:

“In reality, the laborer belongs to capital before he has sold himself to capital. His economic bondage is both brought about and concealed by the periodic sale of himself, by his change of masters, and by the oscillation in the market price of labor power. Capitalist production, therefore, under its aspect of a continuous connected process, of a process of reproduction, produces not only commodities, not only surplus value, but it also produces and reproduces the capitalist relation; on the one side the capitalist, on the other the wage-laborer.”
― Karl Marx, Das Kapital


“The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer.”
― Karl Marx, Das Kapital

Here Marx is attempting to sell the reader on the notion that workers are slaves, or at least have a relationship fundamentally similar to slaves with their masters. The worker may choose a different a master, says Marx, but he is still in economic bondage. It is still, in his words, a man conducting “the periodic sale of himself.”

In the days of the Industrial Revolution, this undoubtedly appealed to a great many workers. Let’s face it, life in the factory was hellish. They were dirty, dingy, disgusting, and undoubtedly dangerous. The hours were long, and the toil would have felt as close to slavery as anything could be. And then some Socialist agitator would come and explain that he had been granted insight into the ideology of Karl Marx, a man who said that one day they would escape this bondage.

Except the notion of this difficult labor as slavery is incorrect. It is the foundation upon which the rest of Marxism rests. That it is truly unjust for a man to work so. Let’s look at that notion more closely.

What would happen to a man in the stone age who refused to do the equally difficult and dangerous labor of hunting and foraging for food? Naturally, he would die. Was he thus a slave? If so, he would be a slave to Mother Nature. Before the Industrial Revolution, what would a man generally do for work? Most likely, he would be a farmer. Farming (especially back then) was also a hard, risky business. It is telling that people left the farms to go work in the factories, and never thought to go back.

You see, while the relationship between a factory owner and his workers may superficially resemble that of master and slave in some fashion, it really isn’t one. The worker can choose to do whatever he wishes, and whatever someone will pay him to do. He could be a farmer, or a servant, or a factory worker. He can choose who to work for, which is also very powerful.

Periodically, Facebook will fill up with comments about how evil and terrible Walmart is, as a company. They pay very little, it is said, and the work is demanding. Costco, they often claim, is so much better than Walmart in this respect. They pay their workers a living wage, provide healthcare benefits, and so on. The implied question is “why isn’t Walmart as good as Costco?”

That is a question I can answer, for many moons ago I worked at a Costco as a stocker and occasional cashier, when the dotcom bust hit in the early 2000s (no jobs for programmers back then). I would unload trucks, haul pallets around, and otherwise. And sure enough, they paid a great wage. Over $12/hour, and back then, it was good money for that kind of work.

So how was it that Costco could afford this, and Walmart couldn’t? Well, Costco is very picky about who they hire. And their expectations for work were very lofty. They worked me to the bone, let me tell you. And if you didn’t work to the bone, you didn’t last very long. Out of my crop of hires (over 20 new people), after three months I was one of only three still left. Some were fired. Most left on their own accord, because the work was too much for them. Walmart is much more lax about such things. When I go to a Walmart, I often see workers just lounging about, or slowly shuffling from place-to-place without any fanfare. Cashier lanes are much slower, too. You just didn’t see that at Costco. Or not for very long, anyway.

This gives the worker a choice. Go to Costco, where you’ll work very hard, but get paid pretty well to do it. Or slack off a little and make do with the Walmart wages. Otherwise, these Walmart workers would all be knocking on Costco’s doorstep for a job, rather than protesting in the streets, or posting rants on Facebook why Costco is great and Walmart stinks.

Is that really the choice of a slave?

Often times, the political Left will tell you that hard work doesn’t really get you anywhere. You’re exploited, you see, by the greedy Capitalists. But how many of them would really choose the higher-paying, but hard-working Costco job over the easier, lower-paying Walmart one? They want to have their cake and eat it too. Most folks have choices like this in their lives. You can almost always work more or harder, if you really want to. Whether the additional work is worth the payoff is another question entirely, but you do have a choice. And choice is precisely what separates you from slavery. If you take the choice away, i.e. embrace Marxist thought, you might be comfortable (probably only for a little while – see: Venezuela), but your lack of choice means you’ve effectively embraced enslavement.

And all of this presumes that you can’t, in fact, also acquire capital of your own. You can, and many folks do. Then you are no longer just a worker.

This notion of the worker as a slave is one of Marxism’s most important foundations, and it is built upon a lie. It is a lie designed to sound plausible, for after a long day of hauling pallets and paying rent, life can seem rather slave-like. Especially when you see the owner chugging up the hill in his fancy new Benz. But take it from a man who could afford pretty much any Benz he wanted, now, if he was inclined to be stupid with his money: you won’t always be where you are, and you do have a choice.

Nobody ever said that just because you aren’t a slave, life will be easy, full of plenty, and without dangerous, difficult struggles. A hard life doesn’t make you a slave, and an easy life doesn’t mean you aren’t one. Choice, not labor, is what determines your status as a slave or a free man.

Marxism: A Cross Between Mean Girls & Lord of the Flies

The right wing has a serious problem culturally and socially, and it goes beyond the fact that Marxists have claimed education, media, and entertainment. Consider the reasons why the Marxists wrangled control of them. Every organization they infiltrate either falls to them in short order, or survives only by becoming incredibly intolerant and explicitly rightist. Even a few of those organizations eventually fall, too.

Yet once Marxists claim an organization, their dreadful mismanagement of it soon results in the organization either failing completely, or requiring subsidy and support from the outside for its now implicitly Marxist mission.

Greater minds than mine have determined how this happens, how SJWs and their ilk manage to subvert and dominate organizations. The question I want answered is why we continually allow them to do this.

A large portion of my writing on The Declination has been devoted to discovering the underlying problem and defeating it. Weaponized Empathy is one such concept, and yet it seemed somehow incomplete. Correct, but insufficient.

Marxists live and breathe power politics. This is the whole of their existence, their singular purpose: to seize the property of others and redistribute it, setting themselves up as the fulcrum by which society is measured and weighed. I know better, says the Marxist, you must obey me.

I am smarter than you, says the Marxist, thus I know better how to utilize your property, you must therefore relinquish it to me.

Of course, if they said it outright this way, nobody would support them, for the tyranny would be obvious. Yet, despite the many failures of Marxism in the last century, support for it continues to claim moral superiority in every visible way.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Communism still retains the moral high ground in the minds of men, even in the minds of many conservatives, who struggle with accusations of racism, sexism, hating the poor, etc… People know Marxism doesn’t work. They know it is wrong. But it doesn’t matter, because as soon as the accusations are slung their way, they feel guilty.

When Trump opposed Obamacare, the rhetoric was that poor people were going to die if the program was cancelled or modified (toward the right) in any way. Of course, this was not quantified in any real way.

But it didn’t have to be quantified, or even true, because the rightist now faced a choice: defend himself and look guilty, because as you know, if you are defensive, you are seen as guilty. What are you hiding, they ask, that you would be so defensive about it? Or you could ignore the charge, and let yourself be blasted in perpetuity for it. Without mounting a defense, you may be left wide open for rhetorical attack.

That is the real challenge here.

An analogy is possible. Go back to high school, when “burning” other students was considered the norm. If someone called you a name, or insulted you, you did not defend yourself. If, for instance, someone called you stupid, you did not rattle off your IQ and GPA to prove the person wrong. You would be laughed at for doing that. “Lol, did you see that kid? John called him a pinhead, and he said he has a 140 IQ. What a lameass tool.” Being defensive is a fast death in the high school world.

Furthermore, while ignoring the insult was somewhat preferable to getting defensive about it, that didn’t always work either. You could keep ignoring it, and others would keep saying shit about you, chipping away at your reputation without fear of suffering any damage themselves. This was a slower death, in that the damage did not immediately destroy you, but enough attacks would eventually do you in.

The sole method for victory was to immediately burn the other kid back. And if he, in turn, had a response, you had to do it again. This would go on until one or the other would win. But even a loss in the burn contest imposed a price upon the winner. He had to consider that next time he might lose.

This may be the biggest problem with how the right wing addresses politics. We tend to think of it as serious business (because, in truth, it is). Economics, foreign policy, poverty, freedom… these are all real world issues to us, things that, though we may disagree on, we genuinely want to solve. We’re adults, trying to fix a problem.

Marxists, meanwhile, are high school kids. Nobody really cares about your GPA, your beauty, your wealth, your IQ, or even how much you can bench. Popularity is all that really matters. It is the coin of the realm. And while some stats can be of assistance in this regard (you don’t want to be the poor kid at a rich school, for instance, or the reverse), it’s really an amorphous blob of power politics that truly sets one apart from another.

Many rightists were probably pretty good at the burn game in high school. But they also left this behavior behind and grew up. Marxists never did. If anything, they regressed. They continued down that trajectory while we became out of shape, lame, and stodgy, in their eyes.

The only reason Marxists haven’t obtained victory, for they have completely dominated the burn game, as only Donald Trump has really given them a run for their money in this, is that rightists control the weapons. We’ve become dorky, lame, and are the butt of all jokes. But at the same time, we are still stronger and are much better in a fight.

And that was the one great equalizer in the high school world. If you lost the burn game, escalation was on the table. Instead of insulting him back, you might just punch him in the face instead. The Marxists fear this. This is why they always pull back just short of the point at which the right wing would revolt and beat the stuffing out of them.

If the disrespectful puke insulting you took a hook to the jaw, he instantly lost, regardless of who had the better insults. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

What our side needs to understand about politics is that when the leftist says “you’re a racist” this isn’t any more likely to be true than a high school kid saying “you’re stupid.” If a kid calls you a pinhead, the answer isn’t to pull out a tape measure and declare that your cranium has normal size characteristics. That is what we have done on the right for far too long.

“You’re sexist,” says the Marxist.

Your reply should be something on the order of “you’re an economic illiterate.” Don’t reply with how your policies are actually good for women, even though this is probably true. You can articulate that elsewhere. Write a blog post, or build a website to discuss the truth of the issue. But don’t respond directly to the Marxist with this, it won’t work.

The Marxist may then reply with a counter of his own, and so on and so forth. If a Communist calls you “fat” reply with “yeah? At least us capitalists have food.” If the Marxist calls you greedy, reply in turn that he is jealous because he is poor. If he’s a rich Marxist, ask him when he plans to donate his billions to the NAACP, because he’s just another white liberal racist trying to put poor black folks on a Democrat-run voting plantation.

And if the Marxists ever wind up winning the burn battle anyway, and fully takeover the country and want to come for us… Well, then escalation is on the table. Believe me, they fear it. Deep down in their bones, they are afraid of us. Because that is the instant reset button. They immediately lose the second it comes to that.

With Marxists, it is perpetual high school politics. View them through this lens, and a lot starts to make sense. Their tactics, their methods… it’s all straight out of school. Moral high ground, in their world, is straight-up popularity, and nothing more. You wonder why mountains of bodies surround every major Marxist regime? Imagine if you gave a bunch of catty valley girl teenagers absolute power over life and death. What would happen? How many would die?

Weaponized Empathy? Almost every teenager knows how to use this weapon. It is merely that we’ve forgotten because we grew up and moved on. They are stuck perpetually in a world that is a cross between Lord of the Flies and Mean Girls. Where everything is about a false idol of fairness, and personal popularity. Where sick burns outweigh anything right or true. If Karl Marx was a prophet, he must have had visions of American high schools. And as for the Marxists themselves, one might rightly suspect they just want revenge for all those wedgies and swirlies they got as kids. They never forgot. They never let go, or grew up.

Too many rightists fear losing their principles and their maturity by falling into that cesspit to do battle with them. Why? Marxists are immature idiots. Crush them and put them in timeout. And if they get too far out of line, spank them. We can play their own game better than they can if we ever bothered to try.

And perhaps that gives us the best burn to deploy against them: “shut up, the adults are talking.”

Faust & Sterility

I’m a weird mood today. Too much time in front of the computer fried the brain, maybe. So pardon me, this’ll be odd, even by my standards.

If you know the story of Faust, you might understand the analogy of the Faustian man, one who is bent on attaining rational knowledge at any cost, even that of his own soul.

Modernity is, in some ways, a sort of Faustian bargain. Rational thought has granted us tremendous powers over nature as a species. But, like Faust, have we sold our souls in order to achieve this?

One of my frequent criticisms of Socialism is its prioritization of rationality above all, as if humans were rational beings, and that a collective of humans would thus, likewise, be rational. Frequently, I find this is not the case. Human beings do not act in such a way as to make a thing like Socialism work.

It may be that a farmer must farm, so that many may eat. This is rational. But perhaps he doesn’t like farming. Perhaps he is not motivated to farm. Perhaps he doesn’t like parting with his crops. Many reasons may circulate in his cranium as to why he simply doesn’t want to do it. Capitalism is agnostic about this. If the farmer doesn’t want to farm, he goes bankrupt and loses the farm. Another comes to replace him. But Socialism must punish the person. There is no mechanism in place to automatically cut him off. And to punish him, you must breed resentment in him. Enough resentment from enough people, and your regime falls apart. Or you could just kill him for being uncooperative. That, of course, carries its own set of problems, both moral and practical.

Our leaders are invariably Faustians when it comes to humanity. They have it in their heads that humans can be manipulated in the same fashion as one might build a computer, or an automobile. That they might be steered toward a correct, and fully rational, materialist position.

This is, ironically, irrational. As all available evidence suggests humanity will stubbornly refuse this, regardless of whether or not the idea is wise.

But the Faustian nature of our Academics and Politicians creates a stubbornness in them, too. It is their nature to keep trying, regardless of the myriad failures the attempts continue to produce, because humanity must be made to behave according to rational laws.

Oddly enough, the principles they desire can, and frequently do, work in small enough groups. A family can be quasi-Socialist in its internal affairs. A village of Amish folks can be likewise. So it is even more insidious. Why, they ask, aren’t these ideas working on a large scale, when they are so beautifully perfect on a small scale?

Humans are well adapted to small groups. They will, over time, naturally gravitate toward a balanced use of their talents and abilities. And their compatriots will be generally supportive and reasonable. But this is because, in small groups, a man can know another at a deep, almost spiritual level.

Modernity has deprived us of knowing others at this level, often times. And without that knowledge, the system that works so well on a small scale utterly breaks down on a larger scale. But as Faust sold his soul to the Devil, for he knew and cared little for it, our leaders don’t account for the soul, or the spirit. It is religious mumbo-jumbo to them, the idle fancy of sky wizard priests and men in funny robes and hats. They can’t see it, they can’t account for it in the laws of nature, and so it is dismissed as if it weren’t even there.

Deprived of this variable in their calculations, they are surprised to discover that the equation doesn’t balance out. The two sides are not equal.

Artificial sterility is a sort of byproduct of this. How many folks truly pour their heart and soul into their work anymore? So everything is perfectly calculated, precise, and rational, but contains no spirit, or essence. So many people these days complain about feeling empty. Perhaps this is where the feeling originates.

Either way, humans are not well-equipped to handle things in the modern world, with its tremendous volume of people. The largest cities of antiquity would be dwarfed by a smallish one today. And all of our leaders think they are Hari Seldons, one step from developing the Psychohistory that will finally give rational meaning to human existence.

Me? I think human stubbornness is a reflection of our souls, our spirits, and regardless of where that soul comes from, or how it comes to be, humanity will always resist the Faustian bargain at some level. All else in the natural world might be made to serve man, wholly and completely, except his fellow man.

Social Justice is Language Pollution

Language pollution is everywhere, these days. Words are twisted and deformed, meaningless jargon invented and spewed as if they carried some kind of intellectual weight, as if the purveyors of nonsense could simply will English to be whatever they wished it to be. Newspeak is fast becoming ubiquitous. But where Orwell wrote that Newspeak was a fixed goal, a language in which crimethink would be impossible, the truth is that SocJus language will forever shift based on the political whims of the moment.

Once gay meant happy, and then it meant homosexual, and eventually it was deemed offensive. Fat once meant overweight, then it was offensive crimethink, then fat became healthy, beautiful, and superior to those skinny women who just needed to eat more hamburgers. To some extent, flexibility in language is normal and to be expected. Languages shift and change over time, such that whatever language the Anglo-Saxons originally spoke evolved into Old English, and from there to Middle English, and so on.

But SocJus hijacks the process to create confusion. In one article, a woman lamented that she was “fart raped.” This is jumbled nonsense. These are words which make no sense when strung together. But the author wrote that men who fart in her presence are raping her, and justified it through some kind of intersectional feminist queer theory (more absurd nonsense). It’s like when the politically correct term of the month is invented for some protected class. Handicapped people are “differently abled,” whatever that means. Blacks are African Americans… except now they aren’t, they are People of Color. Tomorrow, perhaps they will be the Melanin-blessed.

Who keeps track of this jargon, anyway?

Take a look at this example:

“Racial Justice” is a made up term. It means nothing. It is an absurdity. Justice is explicitly an individual concept. Guilt or innocence is decided on an individual basis. If it is racial, it cannot be justice.

Also, an “assault” on communities of color? More absurdity. Word salad. Assault requires violence. If I punch you in the face, that is assault. Not joining some international club because of a disagreement on climate statistics and their economic impact… that cannot be assault, unless someone takes a computer running a climate model and beats you over the head with it.

This is my biggest irritation with Progressives. They pollute language with meaningless nonsense, and then expect us to have to defend ourselves against the resulting verbal diarrhea.

It’s enough to make me want to assault them in a very real and correct sense.

But it doesn’t stop there. Here’s another one:


So now, sexual regret is conflated with rape. The distinction between them lost, as this SJW attempts to redefine “rape” to be whatever she wants it to be. Perhaps if she orders a cheeseburger at McDonalds, and receives, instead, a hamburger without cheese, she was McRaped. But here’s the interesting thing, this word-bending relies upon us, that is to say non-SJWs, granting the same weight to the word “rape” that we would grant to an actual violent sexual assault. In other words, if a woman regrets having sex with a man, this man must be treated as if he attacked a woman and forcibly had sex with her.

Spectacular example of doublethink, isn’t it? The SJW holds both meanings in his mind, and selects the meaning which will most benefit him politically in any given circumstance.

This is why debating SJWs is an exercise in futility. You will never be able to agree even upon the meaning for the words you are ostensibly using to communicate. Even supposing the SJW were to grant the meaning of a word, he would change it whenever it suited him.

Here’s another example:


Exchanges like this are fascinating. Note that the SJW uses the term “genocidal traitors” to refer to those who fought for the Confederacy. He naturally takes offense when it is pointed out that slavery and genocide do not mean the same thing. Genocide sounds worse, and was thus politically useful for him to bolster his argument with fiery rhetoric. Yet these are words that do not mean the same thing. The American South certainly was guilty of perpetrating slavery. It was not guilty of committing genocide. After all, if your goal is to have productive plantations, you don’t slaughter all of your slaves.

Some paragraphs later, he tried to weasel word his definition of genocide to fit slavery, in the same manner miss fart rape tried to make passing gas a sexual crime. All of this is language pollution, the deliberate stripping of meaning from words in an effort to serve a political narrative. Notice, however, that the SJW still wants genocide to be assigned the same moral weight as the actual meaning of the word would imply. In the grand scheme of things, genocide is a heavier crime than slavery, so to make slavery seem worse, the SJW equates them. That only works so long as you allow him space in your head, that is to say if you use the proper definition in your calculations, but allow him to slide on his misuse of the term.

All of this, of course, was in an effort to equate the Confederacy with the Nazis. In the world of SJWs, everything they don’t like is defined as Hitler, Fascist, or Nazi. This is, perhaps, the most egregious violation of language pollution. Donald Trump, for instance, might be accounted as a Nazi because he did not want to commit the United States to the Paris Climate Agreement. Given that Nazis were a specific political party in Germany, one that wished for conquest and actual genocide, I fail to see any connection between Donald Trump’s stance on climate change and whatever the Nazis were doing.

But, again, while they trivially cast any person they don’t like as a Nazi, they expect us to assign the moral weight of actual Nazis to the accusation. We are supposed to be horrified and immediately purge someone the moment a finger points at a person, and someone says the dreaded word. More doublethink. SJWs are fully aware that most of the folks they accuse of being Nazis have no connection whatsoever with the ideology or the political party. But it is politically useful rhetoric.

Another example:


Here we see that though Islam is not a race, and Vox.com is fully aware of this fact, they still wish to cast opposition to the religion as racist. Again, it is politically useful for SJWs to do this. Note that you never see these SJWs claiming the opposite, that it is useful to think of Christianophobia as racism. Note further that even the word Islamophobia is an absurdity. How many of us are afraid of Islam? Opposition to Islam is subtly implied to be fear, and then this fear is then implied to be racial fear. All of this is done through language pollution.

But, as before, we are supposed to retain the correct meaning, unlike Orwell’s Newspeak, such that when Islamophobia is mentioned, we are supposed to think of those accused of it as being irrationally fearful of Islam, and basically think of them as mental cases that need treatment.

Consider this phenomenon from a mathematical perspective. If Genocide and Slavery are the same…

G = S

But if we assign Genocide as, say, a moral “badness” of 1000, and Slavery as a moral “badness” of 500, we get this:

1000 = 500

So the SJW gets to bolster his “500” to “1000” for free. His argument is automatically granted more weight because of his slippery language. He gets the difference, 500 points of credit in his favor, as a freebie in the argument. Then he can claim that Confederates were Nazis, and anybody arguing for Robert E. Lee’s statue to remain is arguing for a statue of Hitler. Anybody who flies a Confederate flag is flying a Nazi Swastika. Regardless of where you stand on the matter of Lee’s statue, this is an absurd argument, and it should be dismissed as dishonest and foul.

But it should also bring back memories of the famous saying from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

2 + 2 = 5

Humans are remarkably capable of rationalizing pretty much anything. It’s a problem all of us face by virtue of being human. But where the SJW differs is that he does this rationalization with the conscious purpose of advancing his political agenda. You or I, dear reader, may be guilty of this by accident. We may do it without realizing we are doing it. We may, on occasion, even catch ourselves doing it and fail to stop. But the SJW? He sets out from the beginning to do this. This is his purpose. It is no mistake, it is no error. It is intent.

Thus arguing with them truly is a waste of time. But if you ever find yourself in a situation where you must, look for the language pollution. It is there. It is pervasive. You will find mountains of it. The more regular folks become aware of how they’ve been led astray by this deceitful little tactic, the more angry they will become. And it will be a righteous fury, indeed.

Book Review: Kurt Schlichter’s Indian Country

If you’ve long felt the country coming apart at the seems, fracturing along its ideological breakpoints, you aren’t alone. Right or Left, it’s not hard to see it. The Internet is chock full of vitriol and hatred between the the camps. In meatspace, the peace was often maintained by deliberately looking the other way, or just keeping quiet.

But now, with the rise of Donald Trump, even meatspace is becoming hostile politically. I’ve lost many personal friends, and I’ll probably lose more. There are riots in streets, and graffiti right down the road from me that says “Kill Whitey – Black Lives Matter.” Hoax or true, who knows? But God knows you didn’t see things like that in my town even a year ago.

We’re heading to a dark place as a nation, presuming we even last much longer as a nation. I don’t know. When I read Kurt’s first book in this series, People’s Republic, I was instantly struck with how plausible and realistic the world he constructed felt.

In his new book, Indian Countrythis world is taken up to the eleven. You see what it would actually be like to live in a time when the country wasn’t just splitting apart, but had already cut itself to pieces. Make no mistake, the world he describes is so very possible, even likely, that it’s actually something of a frightening read.

In some ways, his writing style reminds me of Tom Kratman, as it should given their broadly similar backgrounds. You can definitely tell that the author served. His description of tactics, the grasp of command, and what it means to fight ring true.

Some trolls on Twitter, usually of the Progressive variety, have taken to calling him a stupid “jagoff” on Memorial Day, but they only prove why Kurt’s world feels so realistic. The hatred and vitriol slung his way for just the mere act of writing and promoting this book shows the truth of it.

Kelly Turnbull, Kurt’s protagonist, is a fascinating character. At first read, you might think him a simplistic military man, without any real depth. But as you get into the book, you realize that Kelly is a sort of observer of humanity, almost as much a passenger in this story as the reader.

Oh, he’s not a helpless passenger. During the course of the story, he fights, and motivates his men (and yes, they are his men, despite being a motley collection of civilians, cops, and ex-military) to great feats. But the reader gets the sense that though this story takes place in a tiny part of southern Indiana, it’s part of a much wider world that’s slowly but surely going straight to Hell.

There are some memorable characters, and some amusing one-liners here and there, including an old stubborn redneck downing Pabst on the way to a firefight because damnit, the beer was just there, and plenty of jabs at politically correct social justice culture. It’s not Crusader company, damnit, it’s “Caring” company. I guess every tanker is just a caring transsexual overweight otherkin lesbian in disguise. It sounds like the sort of irritating intellectual refuse peddled by your average SJW. Kurt, it would seem, is well acquainted with them.

The villains aren’t cardboard cutouts either. One isn’t really a villain at all, despite his role as a major antagonist. Others, while being comically idiotic zampolits (is there any other kind?), manage to get in their own way more often than not.

Indian Country is a book I couldn’t put down. It was at times, entertaining, horrifying, real, and utterly insane. And it’s a thing that may come to pass sooner or later. Kurt intends this book to be a warning. Perhaps he, like some of my friends (Sarah, I’m looking at you), believe we can still avert the coming crisis.

Me? I’m a cynic and a pessimist. Not so different from Kurt’s protagonist, in this respect. When I read Indian Country, I feel like I’m reading a history of the near future.

Wherever you might stand on the future of our country, all I can say is, this book is powerful beyond my ability to describe it, and I give it the strongest possible endorsement.

How Much is Enough?

When buying a product or service, the first question out of a man’s mouth is likely to be “how much is it?” As individuals, that question is axiomatic. So why is it that when we discuss grand political programs, the cost is so rarely discussed? And even when it is, the price is obfuscated behind layers of legalese and technicalities.

Sometime ago, I remember discussing Planned Parenthood with a liberal, and when I pointed out that my primary issue with abortion was the fact that I was paying for it with tax money, he replied that Planned Parenthood doesn’t get any money to perform abortions. This was a technicality. Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer money for all sorts of things, but comparatively little specifically earmarked for abortions.

Yet, if the government is paying for electricity, medical equipment, rent, whatever… for Planned Parenthood, but not specifically for abortions, how do we account that? It’s a sleight of hand designed to obfuscate the real price. I can make nearly any business profitable if you pay my bills. So why doesn’t that funding count in the price?

I tried to explain this to my liberal friend, and evidently failed, as he would not count any money not paid directly from the federal government (state subsidies were conveniently ignored) for a specific abortion. Thus in his mind, the fiction that government doesn’t pay for abortions remained firm and unassailable. But if the government paid me money to buy a car, and paid me money to put gas in it, are they subsidizing my travel, even if they don’t earmark it for a specific destination?

But it isn’t Planned Parenthood that is the real subject of this post. You see, cost is ignored for pretty much everything in the liberal world. There is no limit to the amount of spending that is seen as appropriate.

When a charity asks me to donate money, the question is often “how much?” And not just how much money they want from me, though that is important as well, but how much money is actually spent on the mission of the charity, versus administrative overhead.

Yet with government spending, the question of how much is only ever answered with more. How much taxpayer funding do you need for welfare? More. How much is needed for paying school teachers? More. How much is needed for social services? More. How much taxpayer money do you need, period? More.

However much the government is taking today, it always wants more. And furthermore, the political Left is dedicated to guilt shaming you, via Weaponized Empathy, if you should disagree with them. How many Muslim refugees should be accepted by various Western countries around the world? More. Never is it a specific number, fixed and immutable, after which we might account our duty to human rights and dignity properly satisfied. Always it is more.

Slavery reparations work in a similar manner. Ta-Nehisi Coates argued for reparations some time ago in The Atlantic. And again, no cost figure is given, only vague references to a lot, and interest accrued over the years (as if this were a debt, from one individual to another). What Coates wants, and what many Black Lives Matter folks want, is a blank check to draw upon forever. Or, put more simply, they want more. Coates compares slavery reparations to German reparations to the Jews, but without the realization that many victims of Nazi depredations, and their immediate relatives, were still alive. So were many perpetrators. No slaves or slave owners live today.

Even so, Germany should not be expected to pay reparations forever, in some indeterminate amount. Rather, an amount was settled upon, paid, and the thing was done. “How much?” Asked Germany. “This much,” replied the actual victims.

One gets the sense that Black Lives Matter wants money and preferential treatment in perpetuity.

One amusing example is the cost of cars in Denmark. They suffer a 180% car tax. Did you buy a $10,000 car? Be prepared to spent $28,000 on it. A 180% tax, apparently, might be enough for somebody. Here in the United States, liberals salivate over the time when they can do likewise in America. Back when I lived in California for a while in the early 2000s, I remember when the sitting governor was ousted by Arnold “the governator” Schwarzenegger, partly because of rolling blackouts and a demand for higher energy prices, along with a proposed car registration tax that would hit $1,000 or more for some models. That, apparently, was too much even for liberal California at the time, and Gray Davis got the boot. Jerry Brown’s proposals are much more modest by comparison, though still obviously heading in that direction.

But make no mistake, the love of northern European Socialism among contemporary liberals means they would like to do the same. It is merely a case of too many folks in America asking how much. So they can’t get away with it just yet. Still, if you ask them to provide a number of what is ideal for them, they never do. Always, the answer is more.

Let’s look at it from a more fundamental angle. We are told that we have it too good. Maybe it’s our white privilege showing, or perhaps male privilege, or straight privilege. Whatever. So we need to give up some portion of our wealth, our careers, and some of the benefits we’ve accrued in life.

Okay. I disagree with all that. But, even supposing I were to agree, what’s the bill? How much do you require?

I’ve never received a satisfactory answer to that question. What percentage of my income is demanded? More. How much of my assets must I forfeit? More. How much should I give up from my business and my career? More. I even ask Leftists, on occasion, to just give me an ideal average tax rate. How much should American citizens, as a whole, and on average, give up to the government? More. Never have I once received a reply that says “this is the tax rate that we want, then we’ll leave you alone.”

Thing is, the more argument is remarkably persuasive to many, because it eliminates the need for the Marxist to conduct a cost benefit analysis. We don’t need to know how many poor people were helped by a welfare program, nor do we need to know much it cost. All we need to know is whether more people were helped by it. And even the most wasteful and ludicrous of government programs will help someone, somewhere, who can be trotted out as a sad story. You hear this argument from the political Left all the time. “If it only helps one person…” Sure. I could go distribute millions from the treasury to random people in the street, and it would meet that minimal standard. But is this smart from a cost benefit standpoint? Probably not…

Weaponized Empathy comes into play here. If you oppose said welfare program, you must want the people involved to die, or to starve, or whatever. If you say no more, you’re a greedy, self-centered Capitalist asshole.

“You said no to helping poor people with more of your money? Wow. I just can’t even… how could you hate poor people that much? White privilege strikes again.”

There is a classification of human that doesn’t understand price, and always demands more. Yes, that’s right: the toddler. And toddlers are gifted at using empathy against you. When I say no, my son will pout, and sniffle, and try to make me feel bad for denying him. Of course, it doesn’t work on me. I just let him cry all he wants in the corner until the noise gets unbearable, in which case he gets a timeout or a spanking, depending on the severity of the tantrum. My wife is somewhat more susceptible to his charms, however. But even her tolerance is limited, and when it is exceeded, her punishments are probably a grade worse than mine.

Just because he wants some $100 toy, doesn’t mean he’ll get it. Just because he wants more cake (no amount of cake is enough for a toddler, as far as I can tell), doesn’t mean he’ll get it. And to be fair to him, the lessons are starting to take. The tantrums are growing fewer, and he’s starting to get it. But Marxists never really get it. Maybe they just weren’t spanked enough as kids, I don’t know.

But like the parent who says “time out” when the demands grow overly emotional, perhaps we need to start treating any attempt to use the more argument as the childish demand that it truly is. If a man can’t even be bothered to do a proper cost benefit analysis and present a bill, in other words if he can’t say this much is needed, then that man is not presenting a serious argument, no matter how many appeals he makes to morality, emotions, or helping the poor, oppressed people of wherever.

Instead, he’s making a toddler argument, and if it is illegal to spank him until he screams, then the least we can do as American voters is give that political toddler a proper timeout. Go sit in the corner, liberals, until you can learn that policies have costs, more is not a valid price, and “it’s not fair” is not a useful argument.

After all, even my two year old is starting to figure out that much.

Freedom & Fear

Perusing the usual suspects today, I came across an excellent piece by the esteemed Sarah Hoyt. In it, she discusses just why so many people turn against the notion of freedom and liberty. Why does Orwell tell us that Freedom = Slavery, and how can such a notion enter in man’s head? Observe:

A Libertarian friend of mine thinks this is because people like being slaves; they like servitude.


He is wrong.  It’s not that people love being slaves.  It’s that freedom is scary, because if you’re free you can fail AND YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME.

Bingo. As I’ve been saying for quite some time now, what these people truly desire is freedom from consequence. That is what power is ultimately all about. Why are some people attracted to the idea of Fatalism? The notion that everything is fated to be and you can’t change anything? Because it absolves them of responsibility.

If, for instance, millions had to die to bring about the Marxist Revolution, there is an easy out: it was inevitable, says the historical dialectic. Capitalism, they say, must give way to Communism. Thus the heaps of bodies necessary to get there are not really your fault… they were an inevitable result of Fate.

Of course, that’s a rather extreme example. Lesser examples can be found in current notions of racism/sexism/etc… America is probably one of the least discriminatory places on Earth. It was founded on the notion of meritocracy, and where it was imperfect in this (see: slavery, Jim Crow, etc…) it endeavored to fix the problems.

Does anyone really believe that, say, Saudi Arabia is more tolerant than the United States?

Yet so many shout “racism, sexism, homophobia” from the rooftops. Why? Because it absolves them of responsibility. If a person screws up, he might blame the racist white people, or the misogynistic men, or the glass ceiling. The actual target doesn’t matter. The fact that it’s not his fault does.

These people are willingly throwing away their own agency, the idea that they might possess free will, in order to escape feeling bad for failure. When you see it from that angle, suddenly Sarah’s observation is made clear. These people are afraid, not of you or I, but of themselves, of their own failings and insecurities. These are then projected upon us. We become the scapegoats for their own inadequacies.

Sarah explains further:

It’s no coincidence that America, arguably the freest country in the world, when it comes to pursuing the avocation you want to pursue and being successful (or not) is also the birth place of SJWs and Micro aggressions.  It’s no coincidence that it’s in America, a country that prizes women so much it’s almost a matriarchy, that women keep insisting they live in a patriarchy and grossly oppressed.  (All without realizing how much more oppressive even other western countries are. Let alone places where your genitals will be mutilated for the crime of being a girl.)


These things are done, and eternal oppression forever claimed, because humans don’t want to be slaves.  Oh, no.  They want to be free.  Completely free to do whatever they want.  They also want someone to blame as they fail.

In order for us to be blamed for their failures, we must be visibly punished for the sins of those failures. When Zoe Quinn “codes” a crappy word document and tries to pass it off as a video game, it’s not her utter failure as a game dev that is to blame, it is the sexist patriarchal establishment. When she had sex with video game journalists to get coverage for said game, and got caught, that wasn’t her fault, it was the fault of her woman-hating ex-boyfriend.

Nothing is ever Zoe Quinn’s fault. Nothing whatsoever.

In this, they are slaves to their animalistic instincts. They have lost the capacity for reason, insofar as a normal man might make a mistake, learn from the mistake, and resolve not to repeat it. Since the mistake is always someone else’s fault, SJWs never learn from them.

But they do become exceptionally good at spin, lies, rationalizations, politics, and blaming others. Practice makes perfect, after all, and few have as much practice in these arts as a militant SJW and/or Marxist.

You’re going to have to take your freedom, your failure, and your guilt about your failure, as one single deal.  This is called being an adult.


At one time there used to be much psycho-babble about fear of success.  Frankly I thought — and still think — this is bullsh*t.  Everyone i know who claims a fear of success aren’t terrified of being acclaimed, rich and famous.  No, what they fear is that they’ll succeed just enough for everyone to realize how they failed.  Say, they’ll have a bestselling book, but the websphere will be on fire with word of their horrendous typos, or their ignorance of chemistry or something.

I’ve even been guilty of this once in a while. I’ve flubbed more than a few things on The Declination in my time, and on occasion a reader will call me out on the mistake. And I must admit a brief moment of unpleasantness. Worse than that is when it happens when I am performing. I’m a club DJ in my other life, which is to say I mix and remix live, on the fly. This leaves me open to occasional screw ups (in the DJ business, we call these trainwrecks). It sucks to have made a mistake in full view of the world, and to have hundreds or thousands of people staring at you, knowing you screwed up.

But the unpleasantness is just a reminder to pay better attention the next time around and to learn from the mistake, not to pass it off or ignore it. To the SJW, the unpleasantness, rather than being something of a teacher, is instead an emotion to be suppressed by rationalization. It’s not really my fault, thinks the SJW. And upon thinking this, he must find a scapegoat to offload the blame on to.

Sarah closes with this:

Adulting sucks.  But it is what you must be, if  you want to have your freedom and eat it too.


Shut up about it, take the bitter with the sweet, shoulder the awesome burden of your freedom and carry on.

And this is the rub of it all. SJWs and militant Marxists refuse to grow up. They are afraid of growing up. Because the age-old excuse of the toddler “it’s not fair” will no longer hold sway. When the adult hears that line, his response is bewilderment: “who told you life was fair, bub?”

And it isn’t, nor will it ever be. It’s not the purpose in life. So what is? Well, I suppose that depends on the individual take on it, but in this blogger’s opinion, the purpose is to leave this world a better, wiser soul than when you entered it. SJWs, it would seem, have a long way to go.

Candlelight Progressive Magic… Again

As the bodies cool from the Manchester attack, the usual routine is making a comeback. There will be candlelight vigils, people will pray to gods they don’t believe in, and buildings around the world will be lit in the usual retinue of national colors. Facebook, in all likelihood, will have some kind of automatic profile picture generator.

Hearts will be drawn on chalk, tears will be shed on TV, and random people who never met before, nor will ever see each other again, will embrace on the streets. Politicians will hold hands and walk together, and everyone will repeat the same mantras we’ve heard a thousand times before.

“We denounce this cowardly attack. We will be strong together…” Yada, yada, yada.

The usual media talking heads will tell us that it is a tragedy, sure, but the worst part is that the white racists of Redneckistan are going to be empowered, and Muslims around the globe will face more racism and Islamophobia. This isn’t the real Islam, they’ll tell us. For Islam is a Religion of Peace.




I don’t know about you, folks, but I’ve no more patience with this. These people believe that hugs, tears, candles, and symbols chalked onto the streets will somehow banish murderous extremists like ISIS. Together, the power of the Care Bear rainbows will banish all badthink to another dimension, or something. I feel like I’m surrounded by emotional toddlers, unable to separate magical fantasy from grounded reality.

Peace with the Islamic world is most assuredly possible, but it won’t come from hearts drawn in the streets, it will come with a price tag in blood and treasure. Islam, after all, has always had bloody borders. And the weakness of the West has only emboldened them.

Stop for a moment and look at it from the angle of an extremely devout Muslim, one who believes in the supremacy of his faith, that Allah punishes those who disobey him, and rewards the faithful. The weakness of the West must appear to such a man to be everything that Allah has said. The West does all sorts of things their faith prohibits, from drinking, to not stoning women who cheat on their husbands, to permitting gays to live.

To them, we are degenerate, and the conquest of our countries, and the killing of our people is perfectly in line with the dictates of their faith. Indeed, it would be shameful to shy away from exterminating us for our sins against Allah. It would be evil, in the minds of such men, to permit us to go unpunished.

Of course, the usual response from the Progressives is “not all Muslims are like that.” And it’s perfectly true. Indeed, most Muslims aren’t like that. Most probably don’t care about what’s going on at an Ariana Grande concert in Britain. But here’s the thing: enough are like that to cause us a great deal of grief and suffering. Surveys and studies have been conducted on this very topic (and these not ones that would be friendly to the right wing point of view), and support of suicide bombing attacks like this are in the double digits, though short of an outright majority, in most Muslim countries, and even many Muslim populations in the West.

Support for Sharia law is an absolute majority in most Muslim countries. In the same study, you see that ISIS is viewed negatively by most Muslims, which seems good… except in many countries, again, there is easily double digit support for them (note that Jordan and Lebanon are very prominent exceptions – their extremist populations are much lower, they seem to be doing something right). This National Review piece goes into some detail as well.

What you find consistently in all this — and it jibes with personal observation as well — is that somewhere between 20 and 25% of Muslims are either extremists themselves, or are supportive of the extremists and their tactics. So sure, most are not “like that” but enough are. And of the non-extremist variety, most still want Sharia law, a form of jurisprudence that is anathema to the West and its notions of human rights. Maybe they don’t feel the need to kill us over it, as their extremist coreligionists do, but that still doesn’t mean that everybody would just get along and sing Kumbaya around the campfires.

Feminists are fond of using “not all men” as a meme, a counterexample, because to them enough men are rapists, in their view. I submit that the percentage of men in the West who support rape, or are rapists themselves, is far less than 20-25%, at least by an order of magnitude if not more. And the remainder certainly do not subscribe to a form of jurisprudence that legitimizes stoning an adulteress to death. Yet that is enough for RadFems to say “yes, all men!”

See the double standard yet?

Something must be done. After all, what is the definition of insanity, if not doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting things to change?

I’m tired of this in the news. And it has already struck in my part of the world, among people I actually know. It’s getting too common, and too close to home. And let me make this very clear to my readers. If my child were ever killed in such an attack, I would go on a God-damned (and I don’t make this invocation lightly) one man Crusade for vengeance. God may have said “vengeance is mine” but I would damn my soul to Hell to get even with anybody who attacked my family.

So the passivity and magical invocations of the Progressives grates on my nerves. It’s disgustingly naive and utterly insane. It is the man who passively bows down to his executioner instead of fighting to the last. I don’t understand it. I can’t fathom it.

And they won’t do anything to address the problem. It’s sad that so many children suffered in Manchester, but let’s not kid ourselves… they won’t be the last. The blood will continue to run in the streets until the delusional idiots are stripped of power and run out of town, until the hearts on the sidewalk are erased with blood, until the candlelight vigils are seen for the farcical rituals they are.

The Progressives often mock Christians for being believers in a mystical sky wizard, but at least when the Christian man prays, he thinks somebody is on the other end. He thinks that, though his prayer may go unanswered, that someone heard it. The Progressive vigils and prayers go nowhere. They don’t even believe anyone is on the other end. It’s wasted breath, empty ritual stripped of all purpose and meaning.

The Christian, talking to God, believes that somebody is there with him. And if he must suffer, as Christ suffered, then that is the way of it. But at least Christ knows how it is with him, for He suffered likewise. That is why prayer can be a comfort in dire times. What does the prayer of a Progressive atheist offer to anyone, least of all to himself? It’s just theater, posing for the cameras, the useless village idiot saying “look everybody, I’m helping!”

The magic sigils won’t bring back the dead children. They won’t make Islam and the West friendly with one another. They won’t turn back the 20-25% of Muslims who like these attacks, and desire more of them.

And, eventually, the attacks will find their way to folks who won’t put up with it anymore, who will be as violent and angry as I’d be if it happened to my family… and then there will be war. And we’ll pay just as much attention to the lit-up buildings as Muslims do. That is to say, no attention at all.

Of Anointed and Laymen

In the book Tales of New America, there is a scene which stuck with me. In it, an intelligent, educated man of some stature is attempting to sneak in to the “red state” half of a Balkanized America. The man is wealthy, powerful, and possesses the self-confidence of such folks.

He is outsmarted by a lowly, unattractive border guard. The border guard explains that he was not a good-looking man, nor was he privileged to attend great universities. But that didn’t mean he was stupid. The assumption that a man employed in a lowly, backwater job is dumb is a mistake. In this story, it caught the interloper by surprise, and cost him his life.

Laymen, you see, are not necessarily in their station because they are stupid. Modern media talking heads push college education on us, as if to say not attending college means one is stupid and uneducated. It is saying that colleges have a monopoly on education, and graduating from one is proof of intelligence.

This, of course, is utter bullshit. The average IQ of college graduates has been decreasing for decades. And this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Pushing more people into the system is likely to reduce the average IQ simply by increasing the number of lower-IQ individuals applying in the first place. Second, affirmative action has resulted in a push to bring in individuals with lower test scores and GPAs into prestigious schools and scholarship programs. This, too, results in a decline. Even the military is starting to take notice of the trend.

So no, the degree doesn’t serve as proof of intelligence. And insofar as it once suggested above average intelligence, it now fails that test too.

Now, one might say that construction workers are still likely to have lower IQs than, say, Harvard graduates, and that is likely to be true. But the difference is narrowing. Furthermore, the disconnect between folks of the Ivy League world and the regular Joe has never been greater. While Yale students are worrying about microaggressions in Halloween costumes, average Joe is worrying about whether or not he will even have a job tomorrow.

The anointed, of course, find this utterly amusing. If average Joe loses his job to a bunch of illegals, this is supposed to be funny. Folks like Movie Bob suggest that not only are the Joes stupid, but the stupidity ought to be treated as evil. See if you can spot the horrific implication he’s making here:


Eugenicists would love this. Of course, they would probably send Movie Bob to the ovens for being an obese idiot, along with sending us to the same place for being politically unreliable. But never mind that. The point is, people like this consider themselves to be fundamentally superior to the laymen. It’s an attitude that even infects people nominally on our side as well.

Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by more than 2-to-1. And when analyzing a breakdown of their spending, her strategy becomes clear: blanket everything. It was the sociopolitical equivalent of telling all of your soldiers to blindly charge the enemy’s position, because you have superior numbers. The tactical stupidity of this ought to be self-evident (but apparently it isn’t because people keep trying it).

Donald Trump, on the other hand, carefully targeted his resources for maximum effect. You see jumps in types of spending based on time. For instance, in the last months before the election, he outspent Hillary by far in polling. Trump’s campaign knew exactly where to target last-minute ad buys and rallies based on this data. The anointed were calling Trump stupid for spending his last month campaigning in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Turns out he wasn’t.


For all their vaunted education and intellectual credentials, the intelligentsia was outsmarted by a boorish real estate developer. Note also the difference in payroll expenditure. The way things work in the anointed world, and I’ve seen it first hand, is everything is accounted in terms of the size of your demesne. The more people you have, the more powerful you appear. Their first instinct is always more. More money, more people, more media exposure.

Even a regular old construction worker can tell you that at a certain point, more people and more money won’t buy you a damn thing. In fact, in many cases, adding more people just means there are more folks getting in the way. Most laymen have an instinctive distrust of committees, and for good reason.

So what is the difference between the layman and the anointed, anyway?

It isn’t precisely college education, though that is related in some fashion. There are laymen who hold advanced degrees and do excellent work. And there are laymen who hold no degree, and nonetheless do great work, also. The primary difference may be the focus.

Laymen are job-focused. You have to build a building, or fix a car, or write software to do something. The anointed are power-focused. Whether or not anything gets built is of no concern. Indeed, it may even be the opposite, in that if an organization they control ever achieves its primary goal (like, say, eradicating breast cancer), then their power would be diminished. So often times, their goal is to prevent the work from being completed. This is heresy to the layman.

Working-class voters came out in droves for Donald Trump, and the primary reason for it is that Trump at least acts like a layman in his thinking. His goal is to build buildings. His focus is the work, or at least it appeared to be to millions of American voters. At least Trump has towers with his name plastered on them. What did Hillary have?

The promotion of the anointed as superior to the hoi polloi is an illusion designed to grant them power over the laymen. If the layman genuinely believes the Yale grad to be his superior, he might override his instincts, and obey. If enough laymen are fooled, the anointed keep their power.

It would seem that the average Joes are exhausted of the game, however. Somewhere along the line, they realized the anointed were lying to them. Or, at least enough of them were to cast doubt on the whole lot. But they continue to double down on what caused the problem in the first place. Observe:

We, as a culture, have to stop infantilizing and deifying rural and white working-class Americans. Their experience is not more of a real American experience than anyone else’s, but when we say that it is, we give people a pass from seeing and understanding more of their country. More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a lecture by a female business executive.

We must start asking all Americans to be their better selves. We must all understand that America is a melting pot and that none of us has a more authentic American experience.

The anointed don’t like rural America, and that much is clear. The advice is always for rural America to become like the coastal cities, never the reverse. The author of that piece isn’t telling his coastal elite compatriots to go shake hands with a farmer in the flyovers, after all. Rural America is seen as backward and populated by idiots and troglodytes, whereas the coastal elites are rich in culture and intelligence. And those backward hicks need to start doing what they’re told.

But it goes beyond merely rural and urban. Rather, it goes back to the notion of the Brahmandarins. The anointed think of themselves as Brahmans (or Mandarins – they contain features of both). And everyone not of their caste must obey their dictates. They don’t need to sully themselves with work. Whether or not they are truly more intelligent, or better in some way, doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that they have power.

The thing is, intelligence isn’t the exclusive purview of the anointed if, indeed, they even still have all that much intelligence. When I see them executing Orwellian doublethink live on Twitter, I wonder how much intelligence truly remains in their caste:


Notice the rapid backpedaling. Once someone mentioned GamerGate, Peter Daou had to immediately change his opinion, because of wrongthink. The anointed are hyper sensitive to perceived political shifts. This has, in recent years, been used to embarrass them with planted political issues, like 4chan’s push of free bleeding, which led women around the world to bleed in their pants to protest the patriarchy.

And this shows the absurdity of it all. These people propose to rule the laymen, and yet no layman would have been fooled by such an obvious political ruse. He’d have said something like “well, if you want to bleed in your pants, that’s your own business, I guess. But seems kinda stupid and gross to me.” Even a construction worker with an IQ of 95 wouldn’t be quite that gullible.

This, of course, has led to colossal flip-flopping on political issues as the anointed try to gauge how best to play the power game at that particular moment. 

So an anointed can believe, simultaneously, in an extreme example of doublethink, that evolution must be true, and evangelical Christians are stupid for believing in Creationism (and thus must be accounted as science deniers), while trying to tell us that biological gender doesn’t even exist. The fact that kindergartners can tell the difference, but Yale grads can’t, is telling. So much for the Party of Science, eh?

When a layman tries to point out the obvious logical holes, he is shouted down by accusations of stupidity, and told to go “educate yourself.” The assumption is that the layman can’t understand the subtleties of the argument. For instance, in the gender example, an “educated” man might reply with “well, we are talking about gender as separate from biological sex. Gender is a social construct. Since you don’t know that, you must be dumb.”

Granted, this is what they teach in schools these days. But it’s also a ridiculous argument. A casual observation of animal species in the wild is sufficient to prove the whole thing to be utter rubbish. We don’t have genderqueer dogs, after all. Insofar as gender can be a social construct, it is in direct and conscious contravention to nature.

The argument they make is along similar lines of the feminist view of the patriarchy, as some kind of all-powerful system of privilege holding back (or oppressing) certain classifications of people because of biases, both unconscious and conscious. If the patriarchy is holding you back from being a tri-gender fartkin, then logically it must be that your nature was to be a tri-gender fartkin, you were meant to be one, and the social pressure (gender as a social construct) prevented you from it. But this can’t be true. Tri-gender fartkins observably do not exist in nature. So someone made it up, and then demanded the fantasy be accounted as true, and when resistance to the idea was presented, said the fantasy proves gender is a social construct.

It’s all circular rationalization. It doesn’t actually go anywhere.

The layman doesn’t necessarily go through all of the rationalization hoops to arrive at a similar conclusion, he just looks at the person claiming to be a tri-gender fartkin, and thinks the guy is a loony. That’s what we used to call “common sense.”

But you will see peer-reviewed papers on the subject of gender as a social construct, with jargon-laden studies and complex, long-winded rationalizations and rebuttals… and some SJW will cite one and say “you are uneducated! Go to school!”

Winston tells us in 1984 that water is wet, and 2 + 2 = 4. Even if someone were to out maneuver him with superior logic chopping, he needed to hold on to these truths. Winston was the layman trying to keep his common sense amid the intellectual brutalization shoved down his throat by O’Brien and the Inner Party. You can almost hear O’Brien telling us that gender is a social construct, because the Party demanded it to be so.

And, as O’Brien explained, it was all about power, nothing more. Truth was irrelevant and could be manipulated anyway. Accomplishment was meaningless. Everything served the feeling of power. There was no other reason to exist. This is how our anointed elites feel. Their entire lives are an endless pursuit of power over their fellow man, and the emotional high this provides.

Whether they really are more intelligent in some way or not may be irrelevant, because in the end it doesn’t matter if the person asserting that 2+ 2 = 5 is smarter than you. He is still wrong, and is trying to deceive you (and often himself, too). Sometimes greater intelligence only provides a man with a greater capacity for deception.


%d bloggers like this: