Some quick points for today:
1. Social Media PR Campaigns
I mentioned elsewhere that many people – perhaps even a majority – are engaged in a constant social media PR campaign.
By this, I mean that folks take a strong interest in appearances on social media. They will post things that make them look like good, moral people (without regard to actually being good, moral people), or post things that make them look rich, interesting, trendy, whatever (again, without regard to actually being any of those things). This may very well make up a majority of social media posts, outside political arguments and cat memes.
Now, folks have always signaled status and virtue, since the dawn of time. So by itself, this concept is not new. What social media has brought to the table is a sort of marketing and PR angle to it. It’s like every individual has a miniature marketing and advertising campaign running. Constant pictures, link shares, and quick tidbits become advertisements of one’s value. Facebook is like “free” ad space for your personal PR campaigns. Instagram, of course, is even more dedicated to this. All social media platforms have shades of this, though at least on Facebook, we spend some of the time hating each other for various political positions, or posting stupid (but oddly addicting) memes.
There is a gradient between this activity, and the so-called social media “influencers”, whose personal PR campaigns have succeeded to sufficient degree that they can be monetized. They are those who appear most moral, or most trendy, or most interesting, rich, whatever…
…but still irrespective of actual morality, trend awareness, uniqueness, and wealth.
Pretending to be something you are not is so much easier on social media than it was in the past. But the competition is fierce.
2. Trump and Collusion – Nobody Knows Shit
Pardon my bluntness, but it’s true. Something like half the political conversations I overhear or see on social media invariably sink into the pit of Russian collusion and Donald Trump. By itself, this wouldn’t bother me. Yes, it’s stupid and probably completely fictional, but it’s conversation material.
What is annoying is everyone involved pretending they understand even a minute fraction of the legal wrangling and political bullshit surrounding it. A Leftist will say that some dossier is going to lead to an indictment, which will in turn force Trump to testify or be interviewed by such and such. Whatever. These are armchair lawyers who know nothing about any of this. They just repeat mainstream media talking points and fantasize about Trump getting impeached and Hillary Clinton somehow being installed as Empress, starting a dynasty of female Clintons ruling the world until the end of time. Or something vaguely like that, anyway.
It’s all fanciful bullshit. Nobody understands what’s going on. Not even, I suspect, a great many of the people who are involved in it in one way or another. This is a problem with any investigation or witch hunt (whichever you prefer) that happens at the federal level. It soon becomes a bureaucratic brier patch that nobody can navigate or understand. It’s a mess.
Many Rightists have taken to arguing with the Lefties in the same manner, saying that such and such document really says some other thing, and their legal interpretation is wrong, and Mueller is… well, some damned thing. I’m not much of a fan of this method, either.
I will be clear: I don’t think there was any collusion. I think the Left is using this narrative to distract from the fact that they colluded with pretty much everybody on Earth who would give them some campaign support, and is using this to try and limit the reach of Trump’s administration by tying them up in endless red tape. But I have no specific legal or technical arguments around this. I base this on the general hostility of the media, and the fact that most people involved have a track record of being corrupt liars.
Most of the people arguing this case don’t know any more than I do, but couch their arguments in legalese to appear like they do. It’s rhetoric pretending to be dialectic.
3. Facebook’s Stock Dump
I’ve been waiting for a long time to see Facebook suffer some consequences for their behavior. Zuckerberg appears to be in a world of hurt, insofar as a billionaire can possibly be said to be “hurting.” Facebook, like many social media outlets, has engaged in a stealth campaign against Rightists. Or, perhaps more accurately, has engaged in a stealth campaign to support Leftists.
I’ve spoken at length about the double standard before, and have witnessed it in person, and seen it well documented by others. But always, Facebook retains an air of plausible deniability. At first, they claim it’s an accident, or that there are no double standards. When the truth is discovered, they retreat to “individual employees did it.”
We all know this is horseshit. But for the longest time Facebook suffered no real penalty for it. Leftists control the establishment in the West, and their money can cover for a great many flaws, but not forever. It seems they may be reaching the limits of their pocketbooks. George Soros himself has said as much in recent days. Mark Zuckerberg’s troubles may be a bit of confirmation of the same.
Virtue signalling is a topic that both fascinates and horrifies. We all know how this game is played by now, and if for some reason any of my readers do not, let me assure you that you won’t remain in the dark for long.
Moral trumpeters are legion.
For them, it is an arcane ritual, designed to alleviate them of guilt, of a peculiar form of original political sin. It also gives them hierarchy to compete against. The person who takes the most wealth from one person and gives it to another is the pinnacle of proper Progressivism, the greatest of their moral agents.
Who the wealth is taken from, and who it is given to, doesn’t really matter from any moral perspective (it matters in other ways), so long as the wealth is taken. You might take millions from a man who cured cancer, and give it to a bunch of barbarian slavers in the Third World, but all is good because the millions were taken.
The middleman gets all the credit, of course. Lesser Progressives must bow to his superior morality, that he managed to steal more from one to bribe another to do his political bidding. The taxpayer is insulted for not giving more of his wealth to the government. There is no gratitude. The media is most moral, and the guy living in the sticks least moral, for no matter what he might do for the poor, no one is there to see it, therefore it isn’t moral.
If a person helps another, and the cameras aren’t there to record it, it is as if it never happened.
Competitive morality requires that you trumpet your moral achievements to the world. Stephen Colbert shows us how it is to be done:
Here Stephen Colbert is telling us that we are not Christians, and do not follow Christ, if we don’t want to give our earnings to the government. This is designed to wound a genuine Christian, by calling him a poor follower of Christ, and elevate himself as a superior agent of morality at the same time.
Mr. Colbert would be well-advised to read Matthew 6:2:
Therefore when you give your alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Stephen Colbert and his ilk are revealed for what they are: hypocritical trumpeters of their charity.
So long as one man in the world has less than another, men like Stephen Colbert will find cause to call us selfish and uncharitable for not giving all of our wealth to the government, to spend as it sees fit.
Those same people say that churches don’t do enough to help the poor. This meme is a great illustration:
Give all your money to government, and not churches, because it is better at helping people. Right.
These people know that charity and taxation are not the same thing, and yet they continue to make these insinuations, continue to trumpet their moral superiority. “I’m better than you,” says the liberal. Sometimes they imply that they are more moral in sarcastic, passive-aggressive fashion. “I worked for Greenpeace, did you?”
My first instinct would be to say “no, I prefer to donate my time and money to the parents of kids with cancer in my hometown, because charity starts at home.” But that’s actually a bad reply. It’s a form of trumpeting your own charity right back at them. More importantly, it doesn’t work.
That is their heresy, not ours. We’ve no need for that sort of thing. Instead, explain how their charity really isn’t charity. If you’re taking someone else’s money, grabbing a cut for yourself, and passing along some of it to another in exchange for his vote, you’re no Mother Theresa. You’re an asshole.
The Clinton Foundation was more interested in ensuring Chelsea Clinton’s dress fit right than whatever was going on in Haiti. Whenever massive amounts of money are moved from place to place, these people get a slice of it. They can also determine who it goes to, and under what conditions.
Obama, for example, was very dead set against securing the border or stopping illegal Mexican immigration. But he was all for ending the Cuban refugee wet foot-dry foot policy. Why? Cubans didn’t get the “Hispanics have to vote Democrat” memo. If Cubans were reliable Democrats, Obama would have taken the whole damned country, if he could’ve gotten away with it.
The Leftist motto is rob from everyone who makes money, and give to the most gullible poor slobs they can con into voting for them.
They are King John, not Robin Hood.
And they want to con the Christian man into going along with it by working at his conscience. If we could translate their insinuations, their passive-aggression, it would result in something like this:
Just look at you. I bet you have a car and a nice home. I bet you have savings and valuables. I bet you sometimes spend money on things you want rather than things you need.
You haven’t given every last cent to the poor. You prioritize your own family, friends, and community over the people I want to give money to, and that’s selfish.
You are a bad Christian, and a bad man. You are immoral. I am better than you. And because I am better than you, you must obey me. You must give me your wealth, to dispense to whomever I see fit to give it to.
Because if you don’t, I will continue to make you feel bad for being successful. I will make you look selfish in front of your friends. I will chip away at the foundations of your faith. I will insult you and make fun of you. I will turn the media against you. You will be the butt of all jokes.
This is the message people like Stephen Colbert are sending to us. They presume themselves to be your moral superiors, your intellectual superiors, your betters in all things. They look down upon you while ripping you off for all they can steal.
So the next time one of them calls you immoral, or trumpets their own morality, you must answer as Rhett Butler did: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.
When I was a child, I had dreams like any other, impossible goals and obnoxious ambitions. There was a time when I wished I were the Emperor of the Earth. Never let it be said that I think small. Then there were times I wished I could invent a time machine and travel back to the days of Christ to solve the deeper mysteries of Christianity. Childhood dreams are like that. There is no sense to them, but they had a magnificence, a purity our smaller and more realistic adult ambitions sometimes lack. Did you ever want to be an astronaut or an Olympic swimmer? Did you see yourself writing the next great Science Fiction novel or directing a Hollywood blockbuster?
One thing I did not want to be growing up, however, was a victim. At least, not at first. But when I left private school, near to being kicked out for atrocious behavior (I was not a terribly pleasant child), and wound up in public school, that’s what they taught. In seventh grade I got into a fight with this kid, a bully who I had been having trouble with for months. He threw the first punch, and everybody saw him do it. But when I stood, poised with a textbook over my head, prepared to smash it into the insolent little shit’s face, it was me who got the phone call home and barely avoided suspension.
Why? Because I didn’t look like the victim, irrespective of whether or not I actually was. Somehow, his tearful face made him the victim, and me the oppressor. Ironically, this turned me into an actual victim, for before this I had adhered to my father’s maxim of punch the bully in the nose and he’ll probably go away. After this, I learned that self defense was punished. The rest of middle school and much of high school was spent being the butt monkey of every bully and meathead jock around. I was a laughing stock, but at least I wasn’t being threatened with suspension or expulsion anymore.
It wasn’t long before I noticed this behavior everywhere. One thing I was good at was distance running, and I remember a day in which I was on fire. I can’t remember if it was sixth or seventh grade, but I blew through the mile in under 6 minutes, which was a pretty notable achievement for that age. I was more than a minute faster than the next guy behind me. But the PE teacher didn’t even care, or bother to notice the achievement. He was busy congratulating and urging on lazy kids for actually bothering to jog instead of walk.
We interrupt this regularly-scheduled victimhood article to inform you that Brianna Wu, transsexual, is a victim even though somebody handed her $200,000 out of the blue.
This was a talent that was wasted. I look back on this with sadness, because I was truly gifted in Cross Country and distance running. I could have gone somewhere with that ability, but the Cross Country coach spent his time focusing on the girl’s team, because that was the way the political winds were blowing in the public school system, and my motivation waned over the years, until I walked away from it completely.
You might think that I’m blaming other people for my failings (the very thing I’m speaking against). I’m not. I blame myself for succumbing to this idiocy. Hell, there was a time in which I took Marx seriously and a time when I believed the Keynesians has the right of things. Now, if I had that time machine I dreamed of as a child, I would go back to my younger self and tell him to ignore the administrators telling him not to fight back, or the coaches who spent their time working with people who didn’t even want to run. I would find my own motivation, as I have today, and go to the gym on my own accord. But I’m in my thirties now, and dreams of running in the Olympics, or even competing in college are long dead. It should be noted that I intend to tell my son this when he is old enough to understand, it would be well if he could learn from my failings.
A middle schooler is more susceptible to these things. Children can be influenced in this manner more than adults can. If you tell a child that he is a victim, day in and day out, sooner or later he will start to believe it. And if you penalize a kid for achievement, or fail to acknowledge it at all, sooner or later, he’ll probably just give up. I owe it to my father, a good and strong man, that I ever conquered this problem at all, even later in life. Most everyone else in my childhood spent their time extolling that victimhood (i.e. getting punched in the face) was morally superior to fighting, or that people who jogged 10 minute miles were to be commended while people who ran 5 minute miles were to be ignored.
This is an inversion of all good sense. Like much of Progressive Leftism, the celebration of Victimhood defies rational explanation. In many ways, it even defies emotional explanation, for a childhood full of bullies you cannot strike back is one which is emotionally painful.
We celebrate failure. We extol being a victim, which is, in essence, the glorification of losing control over one’s life.
Take rape. A lot of Leftists define rape very broadly, so that anybody (except a while male, of course) can be raped. Drunk sex that you later regret? Rape. Catcalling? Rape. Looking at somebody? Stare rape. Then there are lunatics who genuinely believe that pornography is, somehow, rape. The culture of Victimhood almost celebrates the practice, while those of a Right wing extraction have a different take on the matter:
No, she didn’t. And if this woman shoots a rapist, we on the Right consider that an ACHIEVEMENT worth celebrating.
Have you ever read a story about a disabled person overcoming their handicap? These used to be celebrated, too. The man who lost the use of his legs, but through the help of family and strength of will, manages to walk again is heartwarming because it is an achievement. In essence, the person who defeats their own handicaps is saying “I refuse to be a victim.” Achievement is not always absolute in the sense of a 5 minute mile. It can also be found in the person who has cerebral palsy running a marathon.
Some of those stories still make it out, now and again, for the Social Justice Warriors cannot suppress them as much as they would like (for such stories dismantle the victim narrative), without giving up the fact that they are concerned with power not with people. But consider the female marathon winner who didn’t even make the press, because some other woman running half as fast, decided to “free bleed” her period blood all over her track suit in some vague protest of patriarchal supremacy. Everyone knows who the bleeder was, nobody cares about the woman who achieved victory.
Because, somehow, the bleeder was a victim. Of something. I suppose there was some sort of conspiracy of old White men that decided women shouldn’t bleed all over their clothing. Similarly, men and women both are expected not to shit themselves. Perhaps we shall see the Social Justice Warriors cheering the end of toilet oppression, soon. Go ahead, since you’re a victim of some nebulous and undefinable conspiracy, I’m sure it’s fine if you take a dump in the middle of the street. Then we can go back to being the infantile, uncivilized imbeciles they seem to worship.
There was an article I read this morning asking the following question: “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So Many Problems Here on Earth?” Mr. Garan tells us that technology transfer is the greatest reason to support space travel, for NASA often pioneers technologies that will later trickle down into the consumer market. To be fair, the answer is a good one, but in a nation which once left footprints on the moon, it omits a far greater reason: achievement.
The thing is worth doing on its own, irrespective of the material benefits. In other words, Mr. Garan has to justify why funds that could be given to poor people, or to the “marginalized” people of color, or even the Syrian refugees, should instead be spent on space exploration. The achievement of, say, going to Mars or inventing Faster-than-light travel doesn’t even enter into his calculations.
Why does a high jumper flop over a bar at the Olympics? Does this have some material benefit to the poor starving people of wherever? No, it’s about achievement. It’s about celebrating humanity and defeating our own self-imposed limitations.
But the wheels of victimhood culture have gone so far off the wagon that, rather than training to be great athletes, or learning to be geniuses and leaders, people are instead choosing to cut off body parts so that they, too, may experience the joy of being a disabled victim. Individuals like Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King are pretending to be Black, because in their twisted minds, doing so means becoming a powerless victim (isn’t that a form of patronizing racism?).
Hundreds of thousands of refugees are tearing up Europe, including places like Greece, which don’t even have the money to pay for them. These “victims” are mostly young males looking to hop on to the welfare gravy train of the European Union, while the continent is simultaneously experiencing a period of austerity measures for the same.
Patents please, so that we may establish that you were a victim for at least six generations. Else you will not be allowed to debate, for you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, you hate kittens, etc…
Social Justice Warriors often introduce their victim credentials in the same manner a nobleman might list his titles, or in which a PhD might list his degree(s). Hi, I’m Jane Doe, a transsexual, mixed-race, adipostive genderqueer woman of color. My pronouns are Fe Fi Fo and Fum. Patents, please, is their cry. And, like the noblemen of old, they are dismissive of the plebs with no titles (those evil straight white males). Furthermore, the titles they give to themselves, they will deny to you if they can. I’m just a white guy, or more charitably, a guy of white and Middle-Eastern descent. SJWs generally describe Anita Sarkeesian, who is of Armenian extraction, as Middle-Eastern because it boosts her victim score. This is, of course, politically useful in a culture that celebrates victimhood. They are usually reluctant to extend the same courtesy to me for the same, and will do so only grudgingly.
In the meantime, the footprints on the moon have not been matched for more than 40 years. Today, I have no doubt that there are children sitting in school as I type this, people who could someday be great engineers or marathon runners, or even defeat the limitations of their station in life, but who will be discouraged instead. For, when everybody gets a trophy it is effectively the same as when nobody gets a trophy.
And if there is no reward for greatness, why even bother at all? After all, the celebration of failure has always been easier.
In the tradition of Rachel Dolezal, White race hustler, we have a new entrant in the trans-ethnic insanity: Shaun King. This man obtained considerable financial gain through his lies, by receiving scholarship money on account of his “mixed-race” heritage and supposed Black father. Naturally, it was recently discovered that his father was White, and taking one look at the man you would figure that his mother, still not released as of this writing, is as well:
Yeah, and I’m an Oscar Meyer hot dog.
After some of the usual Twitter noise, Shaun King finally admitted that he lied about his race to gain scholarship money, but then, paradoxically, claims he has never lied. In the finest Leftist and SJW tradition, it would seem that he equivocates lying with telling the truth:
He lied, but never lied. But took a journey. He should take a journey to the loony bin, if you ask me.
Now, the real question is why these White race hustlers are pretending to be Black in the first place. It is a common claim of the Left that we live in a world of White Privilege. This, they tell us, explains why Blacks are poor, more prone to criminal activity, and can’t find a hair-dresser familiar with weaves in the ass-end of North Dakota. In other words, Whites are guilty of something merely by existing.
A fascinating corollary to this is how Leftism borrows so many elements of Christianity, but distorts them to fit the narrative. If a White baby has White privilege, how is this different from the concept of Original Sin? Leftists, I thought that you didn’t like religion? What gives? Stop stealing our toys, if you please.
Anyway, if we consider that Blacks are supposedly having a far rougher time of it because of White people, why would a person choose to pretend to be Black? We can posit two possibilities, both of which may apply here:
1. White privilege doesn’t actually exist, and the programs designed to help Blacks actually give them more than equivalent Whites, incentivizing hustlers to play this particular con.
2. White race hustlers pretending to be Black suffer from some sort of mental illness.
I proposed on Twitter that Vox Day’s law on SJWs, namely that SJWs Always Lie, has a corollary: SJW Lies always fall apart in comic fashion.
And it just keeps getting better. Shaun King cannot answer a simple yes or no question: “are you Black or White?” This is a typical Leftist tactic, and one you see on the more “moderate” Right-wing from time-to-time as well. You ask a simple question, and they simply cannot bring themselves to deliver a simple answer. Lawyerese is followed up by either an off-topic tirade or a speech that effectively cancels itself out, laden with plausible deniability. Mr King’s attempts to dodge the question are absolutely comical. My favorite would be this little gem:
Answer the damn question! Anyway, we already know you are a fraud, so I suppose it doesn’t matter at this point.
Leftists just can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that lying, and getting caught in said lie, damages their future credibility. It’s like the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf went right over their heads. You are a fraud, Mr. King, and we cannot take anything else you say seriously because there is no reason for us to believe it isn’t also a blatant lie. Your time in the public eye as anything but a mockery, a failure, a pathetic excuse for a human being, is done.
Keep hustlin’ Shaun King. Know that we are mocking you.