These days, I figure almost everybody knows someone who is a complete idiot with his money. Somebody who, perhaps, makes a decent wage but constantly overspends in an effort to keep up with the Joneses. This is the kind of person who buys a $5000 Italian leather couch and then tells you that it’s a $5000 leather couch. It is important to him, you see, that you acknowledge his ability to spend money on overpriced couches. This is nothing new; it’s a form of status signalling that goes back to the dawn of humanity, most likely. My beads are prettier than your beads. My mud hut is bigger than yours.
The fascinating thing about it, however, is that most folks I’ve met who do this don’t actually have the money. They have car payments and furniture installment loans. They have credit card debt and student loan debt. They may have home equity loans on top of their regular mortgages. And frequently, they lack the liquid assets to cover any of these notes. Their lives are constantly stressed, for any interruption in their income stream could expose the lie of their status signalling. People would know that they were broke. That is more terrifying to such folks than losing the possessions themselves.
Even folks who do have the money often spend themselves into poverty trying to chase status. Stories of celebrities who spend their vast sums of money and wind up in crazy amounts of debt are absurdly common. But at least they had the money at some point. The status signal wasn’t entirely dishonest.
SJWs do something similar with regards to various forms of bigotry. Their goal isn’t necessarily to defeat bigotry, as some of the more honest among their number admit that it isn’t really possible to eliminate all biases in human beings in the first place. And even the most idiotic of SJWs has to know deep down that in America, we have it pretty good with regards to demographic group tolerance – or we did, anyway, before SJWs started screwing around with it again. Rather, the goal of the SJW is to signal that he is not racist/sexist/whatever.
Like the guy who shows you his expensive couch, the SJW who spouts off how much he loves Antifa, and how he goes to all the local BLM protests, is actually saying look at me I’m better than you. He’s signalling that he’s one of the enlightened, educated, and right-thinking individuals. Not like those icky poor people; not like those icky Right-Wing would-be Nazis.
It’s all about ego gratification. It’s about feeling superior, and being able to look down with disdain on the unwashed, the impure, the unrighteous. Even some who are nominally Right-Wing have fallen victim to this (see: Tom Nichols, Bill Kristol, etc…). But like the neighbor who wants you to think he’s rich, many of them aren’t. Like Joss Whedon, feminist warrior who cheated on his wife with a dozen women, they are signalling a lie. Some, like Bill Kristol, may have once been what they are signalling, but aren’t any longer. Somewhere along the way, they took the signalling to be more important than the truth.
It’s confusing the packaging for the product, confusing PR with the people behind it. It is tacitly saying that appearances are more important than realities. This is a core tenet of Social Justice Leftism. A superficial understanding leads many to believe women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. That is the appearance. Dig deeper, and the truth comes out: women make different career choices, work less hours, and tend toward lower risk tolerance. When these things are accounted for, the gap vanishes into irrelevancy. But this doesn’t matter, because the superficial appearance trumps the reality. Thus the SJW signals his acceptance of appearance over truth by constantly bleating this metric.
Underneath this ideology is a house of cards. One misstep, one accidental exposure of truth, and like the indebted man with his fancy furniture, the repo man will come and take it all away. Harvey Weinstein’s casting couch, Joss Whedon’s infidelity, or as I spoke of once before… an SJW’s obsession with getting beaten by men dressed as Nazis in a BDSM club… and it all it comes crashing down around them. Their moral preening is no more true than the yuppie’s affectation of wealth.
I often tell folks that I’m not that great of a guy. I prefer the position of Socrates on wisdom: none of us are truly wise. I prefer the Christian’s view on sinning: we all do it; we all fuck up. And I prefer a dose of humility to the obsession with social status. I don’t always achieve these lofty goals (see #2), but I’ve long believed that trying to achieve them is worth something. On the flip side of that, it’s very irritating when someone tries to signal a lie, and we all know it’s a lie.
I don’t judge my neighbor on the basis of his wealth, why should I care about that? But if he goes out of his way to lie about it, then I care about being lied to. I can’t be too harsh on a man who has committed various sexual indiscretions (provided they aren’t grossly illegal, of course – see pedo shit, rape, etc…), sex is and always will be a hangup for humanity. But if you pretend to be a moral puritan about sex, and it comes out that you are a creep, then I care about being lied to. It is a ‘cast the first stone’ situation. If you are casting stones at someone, and you are guilty of the same, you are tacking on intentional, self-centered dishonesty in addition to whatever it is you did. At least have the courtesy to be quiet about it. Better yet, go ask forgiveness from Christ.
On top of the aspect of dishonesty, it’s also insulting and patronizing. We know the signals are a lie. For the man bragging about his wealth, look… we can do math. For the man bragging about his sexual purity, we know you’re full of shit, we’re human beings too, you know. We know how it is with sexual desire. For the man declaring himself wise, an expert in all things, we know it’s all bullshit. We see when you are caught in lies and mistakes. In other words, we aren’t fooled, and by continuing on with your status signals, you’re only fooling yourself. Even your fellow signalers know, deep down, that you are lying. They merely enable your lies so that you may, quid pro quo, enable theirs.
Ultimately, the signals won’t work. Even if you fool us for a little while, sooner or later we’ll find out.
I don’t think any human can remove all signalling from himself; some of it is undoubtedly unconscious. And sometimes a signal can be true: Donald Trump’s ostentatious wealth is actually true in his case. But better to err on the safe side when it comes to signalling. Best not to do it. If you must, be very sure it’s not covering a lie.
Well, we have a verdict for Kate Steinle’s killer: not guilty. He admitted to killing her but claimed it was an accident. That claim, of course, changed several times over the course of this story. Whether it was a result of media incompetence, his own lies, or some combination of both, I cannot say. He was, however, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Supposedly he is to be deported. Again. After all, he already came back five times, why not a sixth?
Either way, I’m not surprised. California is a Marxist paradise, after all.
Leftists are generally fond of using the “if it saves one life” defense, or its uglier cousin “you just want people to die” with regards to everything from government-run healthcare to regulation and gun control. When dealing with sanctuary cities and illegal immigrant crime, however, you will hear nothing but crickets from them. After all, only the Left is allowed to use such a blatant fallacy to guilt their opponents into silence.
Remy explains in a humorous video:
Trump was widely panned by his critics for suggesting that Mexico doesn’t exactly send us their best and brightest when the illegals hop over the border. I fail to see the error in his statement. A couple weeks ago I was talking with a friend who lives in Virginia, and she was lamenting the rapid growth of MS-13 in her locale, many of whom are illegals and/or are involved in illegal immigrant smuggling and, of course, much worse. We’re talking about Virginia here. It’s not exactly close to the border.
Ann Coulter suggested in her book In Trump We Trust that the real illegal immigrant figure could be as high as 30 million, not the more commonly reported 11-12 million figure. This gives us a range of about 3% to 9%. That is not a small number, and we can see why Democrats push for amnesty and eventual citizenship for them, or at least a way to get some of them to the polls. Kate Steinle is a minor bump in the road for their impending demographic takeover (famously celebrated in the book The Emerging Democratic Majority). Trump’s unorthodox electoral victory shows that they are very close as it is. What value is the life of some white girl in the face of all that?
Yes. Two can play the “you want people to die” game, Lefties.
If Trump puts up a wall before 2020, he’s going to be reelected in a landslide. If he fails, then expect the Democrats to push through amnesty as fast as they possibly can, to prevent the rise of anyone right-of-center ever again. After that, things are likely to get very dicey in America.
Meanwhile, a murderer will go free… and probably come back across the border soon enough.
Bigotry is the ultimate sin in modern American Leftism. Racism and sexism are the most commonly cited varieties, of course, but other permutations exist. Homophobia, Islamophobia, fatphobia, ageism, and presumably a whole host of other possible violations.
The fact that it is accounted as the ultimate sin provides the Leftist with a moral club with which to browbeat his opponents. If one accepts the proposition that these are the worst sins of humanity, and one also accepts the proposition that all humans are biased (which is true – humans categorically cannot be fully objective), then everyone is guilty of the ultimate sin. Weaponized empathy is then applied. You are guilty, look at all the horrible things that happened in the world, which are now your fault because you’re guilty of the ultimate sin.
Redemption is only possible through the application of Progressive policies. Give up your wealth, give up your possessions. Surrender your country, vote the way the Progressive technocracy wants. And even then, the intercession through political submission is only temporary. Tomorrow you will still be a racist, and more will be required of you.
Take this Leftist example on Twitter. Admittedly, he is not exactly the brightest bulb even in the ordinarily dim Progressive world. But he does a nice job of illustrating this view of the Ultimate Sin ™.
Read it very carefully. “Someone who is not racist is a better person than someone who is.” And then our intrepid Leftist attempts to escape by taking issue with my application of “a tad.” The application, of course, was very deliberate, as was my example. We’ve already had plenty of real life examples of highly intelligent, useful, inventive people being tarred and feathered because they were deemed guilty of the Ultimate Sin ™. Remember the case of Brendan Eich? Remember Tim Hunt? So a man can do something, accomplish something great, but everything is rendered null and void with even a minor violation of the Progressive narrative. You could cure cancer, but if you made a joke about “chinks” you’re now accounted as lower than every person Progressives see as not-racist.
Let me rephrase that a bit. The person Progressives deem as not-bigoted (and this is a temporary license which can be revoked at any time) is automatically a better person than some of the brightest, most accomplished people in history.
Worse, bigotry is seen as a binary state with them. You are either bigoted, or you are not. Gradations are meaningless. The man who makes a politically incorrect joke about “wetbacks” is as evil as Hitler, because both are “bigots.” This is one of the convenient tools of Antifas who see Nazis in their breakfast cereal, all Ultimate Sinners are bigots, all bigots are Fascists, all Fascists are Nazi, all Nazis are Literally Hitler. They misunderstand why Hitler was evil. He wasn’t evil because he didn’t like Jews, he was evil because he killed them by the millions. It is the physicalaction not the thought which rendered him evil.
Progressives lump both into the same category and call it all bigotry, but one of these is not like the other. If you have a bad thought you must feel guilty for the thought. If the badthink turns into speech, you are a Nazi, because speech is synonymous with physical action (except when they are talking, in which case it isn’t). They are like Neo in The Matrix, dodging sense and consistent definition like the protagonist dodged bullets.
Everybody has inappropriate thoughts of some kind or another. The sensible person dismisses them and does not allow them to unduly affect his life. He need not feel guilty about them. He merely needs to not act on them. Do not allow weaponized empathy to hijack your brain and make you feel guilty for bad thoughts (some of which aren’t even bad in any objective sense – they are just un-PC). Do not fall into the trap of bigotry as the Ultimate Sin ™. And certainly there is no need to submit to Progressives so that they may conduct intercession for you or grant you a temporary, revocable license as a non-bigot.
Consider the extreme endpoint of the Progressive train of thought. An equal-opportunity murderer is better than the man who cures cancer but makes a politically incorrect racial joke. The Marxist roots of this line of thinking should be evident by now. It’s the same strain of ideological madness that led to Communist regimes prioritizing political criminals over violent ones. Fidel Castro released many murderers and employed them as guards and executioners for political prisoners. After all, the murderer is better than the political opposition.
Progressives think this is getting to the root of the problem; that by attacking the thought, the bias, they are somehow curbing the action. Except that this doesn’t work. Controlling thought at this level is impossible short of deliberate brainwashing; short of making everyone functionally identical drones. The proper way of heading off bad behavior is to not act on something inappropriate. When a man gets mad at someone over something small, he may think about beating the stuffing out of that person. But should he act on the thought, or dismiss it and calm himself down?
This is part of simple human maturity. The Progressive must treat humans as children, incapable of walling off thought and action; that each thought must turn into corresponding action, so one must be constantly on the lookout for biases, wrongthink, or otherwise. Some of the smarter ones attempt to escape this trap by (truthfully) admitting that this isn’t actually possible. But then they turn around and say we must now compensate for these implicit biases; for these thoughts. They believe that the thoughts must somehow be turning into unconscious actions that are small and immeasurable as single units, but still causing a collective effect. Since clearly [insert demographic group here] are worse off than another, the Progressive might say, we must compensate for the difference, because the cause of the difference must be collective wrongthink; collective bias against [demographic group].
There is an unfounded assumption baked into that: namely, that such small, unconscious actions are the primary cause of such inequity. Many other explanations exist. With the famous “77 cents on the dollar” comparison with women, different personal career and life choices probably play a role. With regards to black people, Thomas Sowell points to the welfare state as the primary cause. He has explained that by subsidizing the destruction of the black family, the black middle class has been wiped out, and this, accordingly to him, has resulted in the inequity. Some suggest nutrition and dietary choices play a role; that people who eat like crap don’t develop as well. Others suggest general biological differences as another possibility (and not merely racial – but also sexual). Progressive brains explode into rage at the mere hint of this notion. It is considered beyond the pale to discuss. Cultural differences are also often cited, with the famous Asian stereotype being a common example (“you study to be doctor NOW!”).
Point is, whatever the reason(s), the Progressive assumption is that it must be the fault of wrongthinking bigots, and we must transfer their ill-gotten, bigoted gains to the poor, oppressed people of… whatever. Naturally, as intercessors on your behalf (and they get their cut, accordingly), you must submit to their will, or your non-bigot license will be revoked and you will be considered worse than literal murderers.
Hopefully my readers are settling down with a nice meal, good company, and a bit of old fashioned entertainment. It’s one day where I often feel the need to set politics aside, because damnit, you can’t talk about that all the time, right? Tomorrow is another day, and I have a full plate of things to discuss then, but for now enjoy a day off from it all.
We’ll be settling in to eat in a few. Turkey, ham, bacon, and all the usual fixings, of course. Stuffing, corn, mashed potatoes and gravy, and yes, the jellied cranberry too – even though some folks think that’s sacrilege. Also, plenty of beer, cigars, and whiskey. Not necessarily in that order, of course. To me it wouldn’t be Thanksgiving without a glass of bourbon on the rocks.
I tried to think of something profound or really meaningful to say for Thanksgiving, but it’s a holiday that doesn’t really lend itself to that, in my opinion. To me, it’s just about how things used to be. Family, friends, and a hearty meal. Simple, but enjoyable. Take time away from the world and focus on people who are important to you.
Of course, I try to pretend Black Friday doesn’t exist, and that it isn’t creeping into Thanksgiving itself. What a mess that is. I’ve no idea why anyone would brave it, and push aside a wholesome day to wait in a long line of angry people for a cheap TV or Xbox. But I promised no politics, so we’ll talk more about that another time.
So relax, my friends, have a good time, gorge yourselves silly, and enjoy Thanksgiving.
Francis Porretto is giving away a good book, starting November 20th. Get in on the action if you haven’t read his work before. The money quote:
From November 20 through November 24, the Kindle edition of Innocents will be free at Amazon. Yes, friends, that’s a grand total of $0.00 for enough words to separate the wholly electronic covers. Oy vey! Such a bargain! So don’t miss it.
Far be it for me to dispute a freebie.
Moralizing Morality Morally
Leftists are prone to excessive moralizing about everything. They rationalize too much, they go too far. It’s difficult to explain but easy to demonstrate. Many might remember the woman who was free-bleeding (that is to say, going through menstruation without any sanitary devices) during a marathon. The press gave her more attention than the marathon winner, because the free bleeder was protesting the patriarchy, or some other vague thing. They rationalized how it was edgy, and a brave statement of… whatever. They overlooked the absurdity that she was visibly bleeding all over herself in public on purpose.
Lately, they’ve taken to rationalizing human extinction, the death of Western civilization (because slavery, dontcha know), why wearing a kimono is racist, or why being attracted to women is misogyny. There is no limit to their capacity to over-moralize themselves into absurdity. Here’s another grand example: Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.
I fisked the last death cult article I ran across, I’m not going to bother with this one. But suffice it to say, I tire of these supposed moral proscriptions against doing… well, anything, including even existing. Sooner or later these people will rationalize themselves into the moral superiority of suicide. Want to save the Earth from the bootheel of humanity? Fine. Let’s colonize space instead. I don’t want to share a planet with these assholes anyway.
Plato’s Cave Sucks
Sarah Hoyt touched on something today that I think everyone should read. By necessity, we are all at somewhat imprisoned by Plato’s Cave, because we are limited to the individual experiences as filtered through our consciousness. Or, put more simply, we only see through our own eyes. She explains for us:
I’ve long ago maintained that movies and other visual media is inferior to books. Why? Because you’re observing things happening to other people.
HOWEVER when you’re reading a story, particularly first person, though others work too, for a moment it replaces the voice that narrates your life. For a moment someone else is behind the eyes.
Powerful writing can even create the impression you LIVED something.
Read the rest, it’s very powerful stuff. Sarah does an excellent job of explaining not only why reading is so powerful, but why the narrow-minded SJW conception of “diversity” and “authenticity” forces the reader further into Plato’s Cave. It certainly doesn’t help us escape it, even for a moment.
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Your culture will adapt to service us.
Resistance is racist.
Democrats were celebrating in the months up to the election in 2016. The emerging demographic hegemony of Democrats had finally come. They could taste victory. The time of Socialism could begin, at last. Sure, they were more enthusiastic about Bernie than another stuffy old Clinton. Hillary was to the right of where the True Believers really wanted the United States to be, and she had snagged the nomination from the Bernie Bros with her iron grip on the DNC. But she would serve her time, and drive American further Left, and no Rightist would ever win that office again.
The election of Trump shattered those dreams, and destroyed the minds of many of the Hard Leftists since then. They’ve been raging, screaming, and lighting trash cans on fire, throwing a temper tantrum. After a year of this juvenile behavior, we’re seeing signs that they are reengaging. Some of the brighter ones have realized that nothing has really changed. Trump stood in the way of the final demographic transformation necessary to bring about a Socialist United States, but he was stymied by his own party and facing constant press opposition on a scale unheard of in our history. I don’t think even Nixon had it this bad.
And there was a day most of us would have accounted Trump a moderate Leftist. That’s how far things have gone off the rails.
I don’t know that America has another hail Mary pass like 2016 left in her. If Trump fails to stop the deliberate demographic transformation of America, it will result in full-on Socialism soon enough. A sufficiently bold amnesty plan combined with some resettlement could turn Texas blue, and that’d be the end. Democrats often complain of Republican gerrymandering, but this is projection. The Democrats don’t even have to redraw districts, they just bus in new Democrats, settle them in the district, and turn it blue that way. Gerrymandering with immigration and amnesty programs, in essence.
All this bleating about racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and why America is guilty of… whatever… it’s all just a ploy to bring about more Socialism and to wipe out existing cultures. They often accuse the Right of imperialism, colonialism, etc… but they are the ones shifting people around to political ends. If you can’t make Americans vote Marxist, import Marxists from someplace else. But they’ve also done the former to great degree, too. Education and media have long been bastions of Leftism. The current crop of 20-somethings is exceedingly Marxist.
Either way, the Cultural Borg will come for you. You will have to exchange your values for theirs if you are to survive. Bake the cake, cater the pizza, obey the government, give up your shit.
Up until now, Americans moved around to escape the Cultural Borg. If your neighborhood was going bad, if crime, drugs, and section 8 made their appearance, you sold at a loss, packed your shit, and moved someplace else. My father lamented that the neighborhood he grew up in is just a ghetto shithole now. A lot of Americans share this experience. I’ve seen it happen to an old working class neighborhood I once lived in, too. Now, it’s just another cesspit. But I moved to escape it. Talk to most regular Americans, and they have plenty of stories like this.
SJWs would probably say I’m racist for doing that, likening it to white flight or some such. But what do you do when the house a block down the street becomes a crack house? What do you do when squatters come in, and the shootings start? The Cultural Borg marches on. I’m sure they’ll eventually come for the neighborhood I’m in now.
They do this to whole cities, sometimes. Even whole states, in their own way. Once they turn a state blue, they’ll impose the usual formula of high taxes, high regulation, and absurd restrictions on things like cigarettes and fountain sodas. To escape the consequences of their own policies, drones flee to red states, and begin the process of turning them blue. Salt the influx with some illegal immigrants, some refugees, and a sprinkling of amnesty, and a new blue state is created. Repeat the process until no combination of red states could exist to pull off a Trump.
Oh, 2016 saw a reversal in some areas, most notably Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It was a truly amazing thing to witness. But look at the effort required to pull it off, the sheer balls on Trump to do what he did. I’ve never personally liked Trump. But I respect the hell out of him for doing something I didn’t legitimately think was possible anymore. It’s like for a moment, the Cultural Borg Collective was disrupted and there was a balls-to-the-wall effort to fight its pervasive influence.
I heard it said once, I forget where exactly (and I’m too lazy to look it up right now) that when you live in a culture, you forget you’re embedded in it. Like just a fish thinks of water as the normal state of being, like how we don’t have to be conscious of breathing air. What a lot of Americans have been feeling – and what I suspect was behind Trump’s surprising wins – is that the culture has changed so much it’s like dropping a freshwater fish into a tank of saltwater.
It’s not the same, anymore. SJWs celebrate this, of course. They like to extol the great browning of America. But by this don’t mean race, per se. To them, the virtue of a particular people isn’t in their culture, or their gifts, or any of that. It’s in their voting patterns. If Mexicans suddenly started voting Republican, Democrats would be demanding Trump’s wall tomorrow. So by celebrating the ‘browning’ of America, they are really celebrating the triumph of Socialism. Any Mexican, or member of any minority really, who doesn’t want Socialism is, of course, a race traitor or an Uncle Tom, or some such.
It is the culture the new Borg are after. They want to erase any and all cultural elements that are incompatible with Socialism. They want an all-powerful, omnipresent government to run everything. We’re fast approaching a point where fleeing the influence of the Cultural Borg won’t work anymore. Only in the rural areas is their rule still openly scorned. In the suburbs, people have to at least pretend to be Socialist-lite. And in the cities, if you are to the right of Stalin, forget it. Even then, they’ll come out to some pizza shop in the sticks to ask about gay wedding catering services in an effort to paint them as unBorgified, and in need of assimilation.
The Borg either assimilate you, and convert you into Borg yourselves, or they get rid of you. Think about that before consider caving in to more gun restrictions. You’re probably going to need them sooner or later.
More and more, the old guard establishment wings of both parties are starting to look like merely a bunch of Trotskyites. Maybe not quite as bad as their Hard-Left brethren but still sympathetic to Marxism, in the end. A lot of people were happy about Donna Brazile’s revelations of Hillary’s cheating, and control of the DNC. But to me, this looks like bad news. Yes, we get to watch the Clintons squirm, which is always fun. But it means the Trotskyite wing of the party is collapsing. The Hard Left, the Antifas, the BLMs, the “Democratic Socialists”, and the outright open Communists are gaining control.
In the ordinary course of American politics, this would alienate them from the moderates, but these days the moderates are often guilted via weaponized empathy into buying into the Hard Left SJW agenda. If you don’t hate white people, and constantly bitch about white men, you’re probably racist against [insert any other race here]. If you don’t agree with the Hard Left’s demands for demographic transformation, you’re a bigot of some stripe or another. This holds even if, paradoxically, you are one of the sacred victim groups yourself. A Clarence Thomas is as likely to get hit with it as a Rand Paul. Stop manspreading you Uncle Tom self-loathing racist Islamophobe.
It’s the deliberate dismantling of Western civilization in the attempt to remake it into a global Orwellian Socialist technocracy. It used to be that if your country fell under the Marxist bootheel, you could escape here, as my father-in-law did, and as many others have. It used to be that as it crept into America, you could leave the blue state for a red state. You could stay a step ahead of the Cultural Borg. Now, there’s really nowhere left to go. The Cultural Borg, meanwhile, continue marching on. And they are showing signs of adapting to Trump’s weaponry. I don’t know how long his rhetorical combativeness will continue to work on them.
The Cultural Borg think resistance is futile. Or, perhaps, resistance is racist. It’s up to us to disabuse them of this notion.
Every time I sat down to write this post, something else came up, and so it’s been on a delay for a while. However, it’s a very important topic, so today I sat down and forced myself to finish it.
It all began when I was reading a post from Sarah Hoyt, called About that Matriarchy. The thing of it is, she’s entirely correct. We don’t live in a Patriarchy, we live in a Matriarchy that disguises itself with the skin of a Patriarchy, just like any other Marxist-controlled institution, really. Sure, men are nominally at the top of the power pyramid still, though that edge is slowly falling away. College education greatly favors women now, the last I checked at a rate of about 60/40. HR departments are overwhelmingly female. And middle management is heading that way, too. Eventually that will crossover to upper management and political representation. Remember, this is on something of a generational delay timer.
But in the meantime you might ask how I could make such a claim. Sarah, having grown up in an actual Patriarchy (which she describes in her post) explains for us:
I knew the US was a matriarchy from the moment in the airport when I was waiting for my plane to come over and get married and watched a very overweight, inappropriately dressed middle aged woman boss her husband and sons around. (It occurred to me the other day that I probably now resemble her. Eh.)
Only in a matriarchy are all men shown as idiots in every commercial; is every boss on tv a woman; are women treated like they have special and holy insight.
ONLY in a matriarchy can a bunch of women suddenly deciding that events thirty years ago still apply today (77 is not now, and now any guy saying sleep with me or else will be taken to court. Unless he’s in Hollywood, publishing, the news or politics, and, oh, yeah, leftist) have men scurrying to come up with #Ihave. When they OBVIOUSLY and painfully not only haven’t but couldn’t being to.
When she talks about TV commercials, she may be channeling an earlier post here at The Declination: Pop Culture, Commercials, and White Guys. Or perhaps she merely came to the same conclusion independently. Either way, a Matriarchy is not as obvious or blunt as a Patriarchy. Given the general personality characteristics of women, and how they often differ from men, we should not expect it to manifest in the same way.
Christina Hoff Summers explains for us in this video:
Masculinity is variously regarded as toxic, sexist, and at the very least in need of close monitoring and modification. The gold standard for personal behavior is the feminine, not the masculine. In essence, our society is asking why men aren’t more like women. And the needs and views of women are prioritized over men. This is often expressed as something like “happy wife, happy life” or “I put her needs first.” This isn’t even seen as particularly good behavior, rather it is the bare minimum. If you don’t think this way, you’re obviously a bad man.
Notice in the following poster how the woman is assumed to be the victim, even though the poster tells us both individuals were drunk:
A woman who is intoxicated cannot consent, but apparently a man who is intoxicated can and is automatically assumed to have done so. This entire campaign is centered around a distinctly female perspective. It’s not hard to find examples of this kind of thinking everywhere. Even the value system the West adheres to these days – at least publicly – is distinctly feminine. It’s a sort of ‘everybody just get along, and let’s all share’ passive-aggressive demand for conformity. It is the kind of thing you would see in a daycare run primarily by, you guessed it, women.
Sarah explains better than I can:
Women, being smaller and slighter and weaker than men have no built in brakes. If we go to war, we go to war till the enemy is pieces.
The feminists who convinced American women that men were the enemy, at least as far back as I’ve been in the country, unleashed a monster that most of them didn’t anticipate or understand.
Ain’t momma happy ain’t nobody happy. And momma knows that she can’t hold her men by force, so she must berate them and berate them and berate them, until they confess to things they wouldn’t dream of doing.
The constant accusations of racism, sexism, whatever… that are heaped upon men, especially straight white men (but other male demographics still get some of it), is off the scale. White men can do nothing that will satisfy anyone, anymore. If a white guy invented a cure for cancer, tomorrow we’d hear that he was a secret sexist because he said something hasty on Twitter once.
Meanwhile, if a woman does something a thousand men have done before her, we’ll be hearing about it for months. One of my favorite examples is this headline:
This is another case of people forgetting men even matter at all. Avery Brooks (a black man) played the lead character, Benjamin Sisko, in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine over 20 years before this woman was cast in Star Trek:Discovery. But it doesn’t matter, because Sonequa is a woman. Sometimes you don’t even have to be a white male to get shafted this way, you just have to be a man. The female perspective is the only one that really matters in pop culture.
A hundred men could, for example, fly to Mars, and yes it would make headlines for a while. And people would praise the scientific achievement (even though it’s more of an engineering achievement, but that’s a separate post). But when the first woman goes, it won’t just be a mere scientific achievement, it will be an historic moment for all women, and for social justice, equality, fairness, and a thousand other Marxist buzzwords that don’t really mean what they say. Women matter more than science or engineering. Women matter more than anything.
Here’s a little social experiment to close:
The woman is always the victim. Even when, paradoxically, she’s doing the hitting. If a woman hits a man, it’s all smiles, laughter, and the occasional “you go girl” messages of encouragement. The reverse, of course, is anathema. Now, some of my readers may wonder about the difference, after all the Patriarchal way of doing things (at least in the more recent past) was generally to not hit women either. The difference is, in those days, it was understood that this was predicated on women not hitting men. If a woman started hitting a man in public in, say, the Victorian age, there would be no messages of encouragement or laughter. It would have been view with horror and embarrassment. People would think she was mental. Today, she’s a hero fighting the evil sexists, or at least entitled to hit her man as much as she wants.
Radical feminism has embraced the penultimate line of the strange 70s movie Zardoz: “The Penis is Evil.” Of course, the first line is one they’d view with horror: “The Gun is Good.” But that’s because, in the minds of feminists, the gun is nothing more than an extended penis anyway. Certainly, comparing gun ownership with penis size is common enough among them.
Either way, Sarah Hoyt is right. I can’t speak for her native Portugal, but I can say with some degree of certainty, as she does, that America is a Matriarchy. And in other Western nations I’ve visited, I’ve seen little to convince me otherwise.
It’s been a crazy last few days, hasn’t it? Before we get into the meat of today’s entry, I want to express both my sorrow for those who died in the Texas shooting, and my deep respect for the men who fought back against the shooter and ran him down. You may kill people in Texas, if you are evil enough and determined enough, but know that Texas will kill you back. The two men who fought back did so quickly and decisively, before more lives could be lost. As for those who died in the shooting, I can only say that a just and true God awaits them. He knows His own. Others have said more, and said it better than I can, so I will leave it at that, for now.
Something else has been on my mind for a while as well. Rand Paul was recently attacked by a neighbor while out mowing his lawn. The neighbor broke 5 of his ribs, such was the fury of the assault. But that isn’t what bothers me per se. While I generally like Rand Paul (and that’s significant praise from me – I loathe most politicians), this hardly ascends to the level of the Scalise shooting, right? Well… kind of, in a different way. Check out this article:
First off, HOAs are generally as loathsome as any other political entity (which is what they are, don’t let them claim otherwise). But this is a fascinating bit of spin. Rand is not a “perfect” neighbor. Note the choice of words. My friends, none of us are perfect neighbors. I’m sure I do things that irritate some of my neighbors, and they have done things that irritate me from time-to-time, though I am generally blessed with neighbors who are very good people. Mostly, we all get along anyway. Hell, some of them are even good friends (and yes, it is still possible to irritate your good friends sometimes, too).
Point is nobody is perfect. Lack of perfection by no means excuses the actions of Rand’s neighbor. It counts for nothing at all. Zero. Zilch. So why mention it?
Dear readers, the spin doctor is in the house. It’s time to make the attack on Rand look, if not excusable, then at least less bad. This is media and its allies in politics conducting damage control. They can imply that, oh maybe the neighbor shouldn’t have attacked Rand BUT and then insert a long stream of excuses that diminishes the impact of the crime. Let us fisk a few of these, shall we?
The history between U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and his neighbor, who is accused of attacking him, is filled with years of angst and petty arguments over misplaced lawn trimmings and branches, the neighborhood’s developer said.
Ah yes. Misplaced lawn trimmings and branches excuse violence. What? Note that it doesn’t even mention who was misplacing the trimmings. The piece insinuates that it’s Rand’s fault, because of the not perfect headline, but it stops short of claiming that. This is common media rhetorical technique, such that if it came out that the trimmings were the neighbor’s, and not Rand’s, the journalist can escape by saying he didn’t really claim that.
The two men have been neighbors for more than 17 years, said Boucher’s lawyer, Matt Baker, in a statement Monday.
While there’s no official word on what caused the fight, Skaggs suggested it might have stemmed from Paul allegedly blowing lawn trimmings into his neighbor’s yard.
Again with the weasel wording. Skaggs suggested that it might have allegedly stemmed from this. Yet the inattentive reader is given the picture that Rand was being an asshole. Pure rhetoric. No facts.
There have been disagreements in the past, Skaggs said, over lawn clippings or who should cut down a tree branch when it stretched over a property line. The two men live on different streets but their lots join and their homes are 269 feet apart, according to Google Maps.
Skaggs described Boucher as a “near-perfect” neighbor, but he said the libertarian politician is a different story.
By near perfect, I wonder if Skaggs means ‘shares my political orientation?’ But that is rhetorical supposition, and at least I’ll admit it is.
Paul “was probably the hardest person to encourage to follow the (homeowner’s association regulations) of anyone out here because he has a strong belief in property rights,” said Skaggs, who is the former chairman of the Warren County Republican Party.
Ah. A libertarian-leaning Republican has a strong belief in property rights. Why, what a crime that is! It almost drives a man to break 5 of his ribs! Look carefully at the last bit, however, where the journalist drops “former chairman of the Warren County Republican Party.” This is another rhetorical technique. The author can insinuate that Skaggs’ criticism of Rand is justified because they share a political party, thus deflecting the notion that the criticism is rooted in politics, not substance. But we are not informed if Skaggs is still a Republican, or if he is a liberal Republican, or anything of the sort.
Skaggs noted the 13 pages of regulations are extensive. But even from the start of Paul’s residence in Rivergreen, Skaggs said Paul has been difficult to work with.
“The major problem was getting the house plans approved,” Skaggs said. “He wanted to actually own the property rights and build any kind of house he wanted. He didn’t end up doing that, but it was a struggle.”
So Rand wanted something the HOA was not prepared to approve, but ultimately decided to follow the HOA guidelines. Why, that’s just terrible isn’t it? Why is this even news?
But Rob Porter, a 20-year friend of the senator, said he had never even heard of Boucher before.
“When I saw Rand after the incident, he even acknowledged that he hadn’t talked to Boucher in years,” Porter said. “If there was some kind of ongoing rift, i wasn’t aware of it and Rand didn’t act like he was aware of it.”
At least the author acknowledges this. If there was an ongoing feud, as Skaggs and the author imply, why would no one else be aware of it? But even if there was a feud, how does that justify even slightly attacking Rand that way?
Voter records from March 2017 show Boucher registered as a Democrat, but his lawyer said Monday that politics had nothing to do with the dispute between neighbors.
Boucher’s lawyer, Baker, said he would not comment on what the argument was over until he conducted more interviews with other neighbors.
Somehow, I very much doubt this is true. It sounds like standard lawyer boilerplate.
“We would really like to see this all over and you back in your house and him back in his house and try to be friends with each other, even though you’ll never like each other,” Skaggs said he told Boucher.
This Skaggs guy, if the author is accurately quoting him, is an idiot. How can you “be friends with each other even though you’ll never like each other”? It makes no sense. That is word salad, devoid of any meaning. What I think Skaggs is trying to communicate here is that the neighbors should pretend to be friends, even though they hate each other’s guts. So Skaggs criticizes Rand for being imperfect, but tells the attacker that he’d really like to see everyone just be friends.
And people wonder why I hate HOAs. Too bad they are almost inescapable, short of moving to the country, these days.
Social media is full of long-winded, acrimonious debates about politics, sociology, cats, etc… It’s enough to make a man seriously consider giving it up completely. My colleague at Liberty’s Torchdiscussed cutting that particular line earlier, and though I have not done what he did, I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t think about it. Mostly, the arguments are just for show. People don’t expect to win hearts and minds in them, not really. Rather, it’s often just a virtue signal, or the refilling of narcissistic supply.
A few posts in, and the insults about stupidity, bigotry, Dunning-Kruger, and otherwise will make themselves known. And in them we see the true purpose of many such debates: feeling superior. If you infer that your opponent is a Nazi, you feel morally superior to him. If you call him stupid, you can feel intellectually superior. The bigger the audience, the better, so more people can affirm your superiority over your enemy. The actual issue at hand is rarely as important as these feelings. Find me a Facebook debate, and I can almost guarantee you at least one participant who is engaging in this behavior.
And since no one is really arguing in a dialectical manner (though you will see the word “facts” repeated as mantra for things that aren’t), nothing gets resolved. No new knowledge is gained, no insight or deeper understanding. It is purposeless mental masturbation. It certainly doesn’t make one an intellectual, or more intelligent.
What I’ve come to realize is that this behavior on social media is a microcosm for our society at large. The same behavior applies at the highest levels of media and politics. Most of these people have no idea what they are talking about, even most of the so-called experts (contrary to Tom Nichols’ assessment of political expertise). Find me an expert pilot, and we can go through his records, how many hours he’s logged, on what aircraft, and with what results. It is demonstrable. There is no similar metric for media talking heads, especially where results are concerned. And for politics, and measure of this is bound to be skewed by the political views of its members, such that our reliance upon it is already suspect.
This leads to an environment of low accountability. Oh, sure, if a man like Dan Rather gets snookered by some fake memos very publicly, the house of cards can fall down on him. But the mistake has to be high profile enough and, paradoxically, covered by the media enough, for it to get out in the first place.
Michael Crichton explained the problem as the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Observe:
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
A combination of superficial understanding and political narratives results in articles and news programs that make no sense. The percentage of the problem attributable to either feature varies widely from case-to-case. Sometimes it is blatantly political, and it cannot be explained by ignorance. Other times, it is probably best explained with stupidity. Most cases are probably a little of both. The media and its supporters, meanwhile, are quite blind to this. I came across this gem this afternoon, and it made me laugh out loud for the sheer stupidity of it:
The amusing thing is how easy this is to disprove. A quick glance at the SAT scores of incoming college students, broken down by major, is sufficient to reveal the error (see page 13 here). Of the STEM majors, all outscored journalists (see: engineering, physical sciences, mathematics, computer/information sciences). Some did so by staggering margins (see: mathematics). That the author of that tweet couldn’t be bothered to check his work, when claiming high intellect, is actually pretty damned hilarious. It’s enough to make me wonder if the guy is secretly trolling.
Anyway, point is, try Michael Crichton’s test for yourself. It’s something I’ve spoken of before – I just lacked the convenient name for it. Talk to other people who have done the same for different subjects, people you trust. You’ll soon see just how wrong the media is. Trump frequently calls CNN fake news, but in reality pretty much every outlet I’ve seen is full of shit to greater or lesser degree. Sometime I’d like to see a counter for how many times individual journalists have been caught in lies, or made serious mistakes driven by stupidity and ignorance.
These are the same people who, like the randoms on Facebook, want to demonstrate how enlightened they are, how wise, all-knowing, and progressive. They have a bigger podium, of course, and more spectators. But the motivations are similar enough. It’s all about appearances and narcissistic supply. It all boils down to a statement even a toddler could understand, and likely hears frequently on the playground. “I’m better than you! Neener-neener!” But they aren’t willing to do the work. They all expected Hillary Clinton to win, right up until she didn’t. Never forget how badly they called that election. If you get amnesia about their smaller mistakes, at least hold on to that one. They pretend to expert status. Meanwhile Trump, the supposedly stupid bigot, baits them like a matador. It’s comical how he plays them.
They want so desperately to shout down this man. I once thought it was because of his immigration policies – and I have no doubt that was a major factor, at least at first. But I’ve come to realize that there’s a deeper reason. He makes them look like idiots. He hurts their egos. Because, deep down, they know they aren’t the superior intellects they pretend to be. They know they are fake news. And he not only sees through them, he’s exposed them as frauds in front of the world. This they cannot forgive, or forget.
I’ve been seeing an awful lot of this kind of sophistry lately. It’s moralism run amok. It differs from Social Justice only in degree. The SJW prioritizes certain classes and groups above others, based on an arbitrary Progressive Stack. This cretin suggests that life itself must be extinguished, in other words that nobody is salvageable. It won’t be long before something akin to this becomes orthodox Social Justice belief.
Everything they do, from the casual treatment of abortion to the constant wearing down of men, to the incessant racial polarization, and finally to the worship of Death Cults like militant Islam and Communism… it all leads inexorably to this destination.
I lack the ability to prove it (I cannot get into their heads, and I don’t think I’d want to even if it were possible), but I’ve long suspected that the underlying mechanism is disappointment in life. These people were promised utopias, heaven on Earth, a place without suffering, loss, and unfairness. If such a place exists, it is not here on Earth. Most of us eventually come to realize this, and make peace with it, and live our lives as best we can despite it. But these people never entirely let go of the expectation, and it festers into extreme disappointment and rage at the unfairness of it all.
And like all misery, it desires our company. Observe:
But even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong. Life is simply much worse than most people think, and there are powerful drives to affirm life even when life is terrible. People might be living lives that were actually not worth starting without recognising that this is the case.
This is full of rhetorical nonsense like “life is simply much worse than people think.” What people? Worse than what benchmark? To the contrary, human life has, in general, improved in very quantifiable ways over time. As I type this, I sit in a comfortably temperature-controlled building, with a full stomach, able to access pretty much any piece of human knowledge in seconds. Part of the desire to have children is the notion that they will have it better than us. That we leave to them a world better than we found it.
The central argument of this piece is that life is full of suffering (true), and that as a result, bringing new life into the world is fundamentally immoral. This is an argument for human extinction, something the author realizes:
The question is not whether humans will become extinct, but rather when they will. If the anti-natalist arguments are correct, it would be better, all things being equal, if this happened sooner rather than later for, the sooner it happens, the more suffering and misfortune will be avoided.
This contains many implicit assumptions: first of all that there is not a higher purpose for human beings. If one, for instance, were to believe in God, then it is possible this life is a test, and that another exists should we pass the test. Even if one is an atheist, it is possible to consider that human knowledge and evolution will eventually lead to immortality, or something like it; that even the supposed heat-death of the universe might be reversed (there is a great story by Isaac Asimov about this very thing). Regardless, the author is solipsistic in the extreme. He does not ponder a meaning or purpose outside the bounds of his own puny life. And since his life is imperfect, he presumes it a moral wrong that any other should “suffer” it. With a solipsistic worldview, it is easy to slip into madness like this, because other people don’t even necessarily seem entirely real. It’d be like a Communist reading reports on the number of people who died at the gulag last week, they are just numbers, not even real people.
How many dead bodies have been stacked up in the quest for perfection? It is and always has been a fallacy.
The thing to understand above all this, however, is that morality is a tool. People like the author of this bullshit moralize until they are blue in the face. They dig too deep. They are too far away from the purpose of morality. If humans did not exist (for the sake of argument, I’m presuming there are no other sentient species), there would be no morality; no right or wrong. These are concepts that exist solely in the minds of individual humans. What good would the universe be, then? He argues not for the peak morality, but for the elimination of all morality.
This is the danger of applying concepts of morality at a meta level. It is what SJWs do, only to even greater degree. The SJW tries to balance out the conflicting moral stances of history; slavery to Jim Crow; Genocide to Imperialism; Conquest and Jihad; Poverty and wealth. This is beyond us. Playing with morality at a meta level leads to surprisingly irrational conclusions like kill all the humans, kill all men, or fuck white people. They differ only in degree of meta-moralizing.
Think about it. Someday SJWs are bound to realize that male feminists are just as “rapey”, if not more so, than the shitlords. Sooner or later, they must learn that Islam is much harder on gays and transgender folks than Christians are. Or that groups of people far more racist than white Americans exist. SJWs will have to cannibalize themselves sooner or later. Black Lives Matter must inevitably conflict with White Girl Feminism. Chinese Communism must eventually conflict with Euro-Globalism. And so on…
Sooner or later SJWs will join our self-described “anti-natalist” in condemning the entire human species as worthless.
It all stems from a category error. Morality must first and foremost be applied to individual interactions. Bottom up, so to speak. Applying it from the top down leads to a self-destructive rationalization spiral ending with the position this man has espoused: the complete extinction of humanity. It’s something adherents of death cults like militant Islam are perfectly aware of, too, given their quasi-apocalyptic rhetoric.