Parenting and the Problem of Identity Maintenance

Stacy McCain reads this crap so you don’t have to.

I think I would find many aspects of parenting enjoyable. I think it would change my opinions and worldview in interesting ways.
But I also have reasons for not wanting to have children, and there are more of those and they are more emotionally salient. I don’t think I could mentally handle such demands on my time and energy, on my very body itself. I don’t want to give up all that brainspace that was previously spent on friends, work, writing, and other stuff and instead spend it on feeding schedules, shopping lists, doctor visits, and all the many, many other forms of emotional labor mothers have to do. . . . I don’t want to slow or damage my career. I don’t want to stop having sex, or be forced to have it in secrecy and silence. . . .

That’s some weirdo 3rd Wave feminist informing her blog readership she won’t be spawning.  I think we all can be grateful for that.  But I’m also grateful that she’s confirmed a longstanding theory of mine: It’s utterly exhausting being a liberal.  RTWT.  This broad doesn’t have one spare joule for anything other than being xyr own “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible,” whatever, self.

As any parent will tell you, “feeding schedules, shopping lists, doctor visits” etc. pretty much IS parenting, at least for the first year or so.  Please hold your jokes about exactly how many KB of “brainspace” her (or my) “friends, work, writing, and other stuff” takes up, and focus on the word choice: “give up…friends, work, writing, and other stuff.”  Isn’t that odd?

In reality, of course, you don’t give up that stuff; it simply changes.  Instead of talking about, say, politics with your friends, you talk about kids.  If you have kids and your friends don’t, they tell you about politics, and you tell them about your kids.  And — this is the important part — they want to hear about your kids, because your kids are important to you, and therefore your kids are important to them, because they’re interested in things that are important to you, because they’re your friends.

Will so-and-so no longer be my friend because he can’t get as outraged about Obama as he used to, now that he’s up changing diapers every 3am?  Is that all our “friendship” is, reciprocal bitching?

Once again we see the leftist obsession with stasis.  It’s the Current Year, and nothing should ever be anything other than the way it is.

Or consider this:

I don’t want to stop having sex, or be forced to have it in secrecy and silence. . . .

As McCain points out, Our Heroine describes herself as “on the asexual spectrum somewhere” and does not “experience primary sexual attraction.”  How much sex could she be having in the first place?  But again, hold the jokes and focus on the word choice.  “Stop having sex.”  As if it’s a stark choice between letting the rugrat starve and getting it on.  Without TMI, I promise, here’s how new parents have sex:  you wait until the kids are asleep, and then you do it.  Or you don’t, because you’re flat exhausted from all those feedings and diaper changes, but whatever — the fact is, newborns sleep about 16 hours a day.  That’s a lot of sex if you’re so inclined.

And it’s not secret, or silent (if that’s how you roll), nor does it have to be that way when the kids are older, because kids sleep like the dead and doors close.  Ok, yeah, I suppose the ol’ bent-over-the-dining-room-table quickie on your lunch break is out, but again, you’re not stopping having sex; you’re just modifying it somewhat.  Aren’t you people into all that “transgressive” shit?  Well, I promise you that nobody in your circle of friends is doing it missionary in the marital bed with the lights out.  Be daring!  Blow some minds.

Finally, further in the article, Stacy quotes this:

Those are just a few of my personal issues with having children. And sure, I recognize that most of these are not inevitable, that in a different society with proper support for parents (especially mothers), none of this would have to be the case.

Stasis, stasis, stasis.  Talk to any parent.  Hell, just be in their general vicinity for a few minutes; you’ll quickly realize that there is NO level of “support”, none whatsoever, that will let you carry on exactly as you were when childless.  At some point you’re gonna get stuck alone with the little scamp, and it’s gonna need something, and you’re gonna have to give it.  (Yes, even in a “large polyamorous household”)*.  If Sweden, the alpha and omega of democratic socialism (says every American liberal at every opportunity) can’t do it, it can’t be done.

Ok, ok, you’ve borne with me long enough.  Give into your snark, young padawan:

I think I’d be a good parent, I like the idea of raising kids who will become the kind of people we need more of in the world. . . .

Stacy: “Is there a weirdo shortage?” Me: Need to do what, exactly?  Our Heroine’s “job” seems to be “Twitterati, bonehead feminist division.”  We already have the Postmodern Essay Generator; any first year comp sci major should be able to turn out a bot that perfectly mimics her output.

I think it [parenting] would change my opinions and worldview in interesting ways.

Show of hands: Who thinks Ms. Mogilevsky wants her opinions and worldview changed?  I imagine folks on the internet try to change her opinions and worldview all the time.  I further imagine the success rate of those endeavors is 0.0%, and that she’s worn out more than a few mouse buttons blocking people on Twitter and closing comment feeds.

I don’t want to slow or damage my career.

Lots of upward mobility at Salon.com, is there?  The Guardian got some op-ed slots we haven’t heard about?  Is Jezebel paying by the word now?

I am wildly terrified of pregnancy and childbirth and literally any medical procedure

But it’s just a clump of cells!

I don’t get to have children inside my own hypothetical science fiction novel

I think this is the novel she means.

See where I’m coming from?  It’s gotta be hard fucking work to be so ideological, so tendentious, so completely lacking in self-awareness.  She puts more effort into avoiding the obvious in a single paragraph than I’ve put into anything, ever.

As I’ve already stolen half his column, let’s let Stacy have the last word:

Never mind. Another feminist heading toward the Darwinian Dead End — manifestly unfit for survival, she subtracts her defective DNA from the future — and all we can say is, “Bon voyage, Crazy Cat Lady!”

 

 

*n.b. “polyamorous” is one of my favorite Newspeak words.  Stacy: “That’s what we used to call ‘screwing around,’ but when intellectuals screw around, they need a fact word for it, to make it sound clever.”  But it’s even better than that, as I suspect that Our Betters’ polyamory, like PUAs’ polyamory, is strictly theoretical.  I was “polyamorous” when I was single, too.  Problem was, nobody wanted to be polyamorous with me, so I had to clean up, get some Game, and settle down with a nice girl who shared some of my interests and had similar life goals.  Weird, I know.  Transgressive, even!

The Caliphate Will Have Its Upsides

I think most of us can agree that this woman needs some serious burqa time.

6a00d83451675669e201bb0922b764970d-800wi(safe link to David Thompson).

Seriously, though: You wanna know why we’re gonna get Fascism?  It’s the culture, stupid.  This woman literally has nothing better to do than pretend to worry about the size of her daughter’s turds.  She lives a life so different from normal people that she might as well be a Martian, fretting over the number of freeps in the smerp….

…and yet, she’s absolutely certain she knows how to run your life better than you do.  Given a single erg of power, she’d enact mandatory Niceness and ban the internal combustion engine.  For the children.  Meanwhile, ever-increasing numbers of Westerners are worried about how to afford diapers.

The first politician who promises to toss women like this out of public life and into an updated Bund Deutscher Madel is going to win whatever he’s running for in a landslide.  The fuel of populism is hatred, I’m told, but tell me Cloud People like this aren’t doing everything in their considerable power to make themselves hated.  Be careful what you wish for….

Atheism and Critical Thinking

A post at Z Man’s got me going.  I had some thoughts that aren’t appropriate for his comments, but wanted to throw out there for discussion.

Yesterday I said that “if I had to pick the one worst thing about America 2016, it would be ‘failure to listen to the very words that are coming out of one’s mouth.'”  Today I’m going to add: “Failure to know what the words coming out of one’s mouth even mean.”

For instance, “atheists” aren’t really atheist.  For one thing, we all know that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative.  That sounds like hair-splitting semantics, but that’s my point — the word atheism is, by its very nature, self-contradictory.  The very best one can logically do is agnosticism — concluding that, given all the evidence, the probability of there being at least one god is vanishingly low.

So: “atheism” doesn’t mean what it means.  The first step in clear thinking is recognizing the meaning of the words one uses.  That’s why Big Brother invented Newspeak — without the vocabulary to express forbidden thoughts, forbidden thoughts would not arise.

In practice, of course, atheist means “anti-Christian.”  Ever met a South Asian atheist, who insists there is no Vishnu?  There’s probably one out there somewhere, but atheism seems to be a strictly Western preoccupation.  And even then its confined to a subset of the West, as I’m pretty sure the Dawkins types aren’t trolling Jewish blogs about Yahweh and all the contradictions in the Torah.  It’s Jesus, specifically, that our atheists are hacked off at.

And that’s perfectly fine.  Christianity is absurd.  Its claims rest on the literally impossible — the self-resurrection of a man, who was also a god.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to be known as fact, and short of actually being there in the tomb and seeing the breath of life come back into his three-day-old corpse with your own eyes, there is no proof extraordinary enough to move that claim into the realm of fact.

So if you want to claim that Christianity is ridiculous, I’ll agree with you 100%.  Its central claim, the foundation of 2000 years of belief, violates all known laws of physics and the logical law of non-contradiction.  But in return, I’d like you to admit that this does not preclude the existence of any and all gods; it simply invalidates the claims of this particular god.  To admit, in short, that you’re not an atheist — you’re just anti-Christian.

Show of hands: who thinks our evangelical atheists would take this deal?

The irony here is especially corrosive, as guys like Dawkins have convinced generations of young neckbeards that they’re critical thinkers.  They charge into e-battle armed with long lists of contradictory stuff in the Bible, books excised from the New Testament by the Church Fathers, claims about the fossil record, and whatnot.  As if all this proved that it is impossible for any god to exist!

As I said at Z Man’s, it’s the arrogance of this that bugs me the most.  They act as if the first time they think of something is the first time in all of human history that thought has been thunk.  As if Christians haven’t been struggling with this stuff for 2000 years.  As if nobody ever picked up his Bible and noticed that there are multiple divergent accounts of important events.  As if no less a theologian than St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t come right out and declare that the truths of revelation can’t be proved by reason…..

Et cetera ad nausam.  They have the stones to call this “critical thinking,” when in fact it takes breathtaking ignorance of intellectual history to even call their piddly little assertions “problems.”  But then again, what else can one expect from folks whose very movement name is a misnomer?

Again, if you want to be anti-Christian, go nuts.  Since I’m not invincibly ignorant of the Western cultural tradition, I know that anti-Christianity has a long, long pedigree.  A Roman emperor wrote a pretty good book about it, and of course there’s Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche… you’ve got some heavy hitters in your corner, is what I’m saying.  Check them out.  But please, stop pretending you’ve proven there is no God, when all you’ve demonstrated is that you’ve got a beef with Jesus, mmmkay?

Buddy_christ

Rebuilding “Conservatism”

Via Vox Day, I see that some cuck named Andrew Klavan has produced a bullet point list of how to “rebuild conservatism.”  Vox fisks it admirably, and RTWT if that’s your bag.  But I prefer to take the project seriously.  If I were to “rebuild conservatism,” the first thing I’d do is….

Well, scratch that.  Before we even get to my list, we need to acknowledge that there is no such thing as “conservatism.”  Hare-brained, holy-rolling world-savers* have been trying to synthesize their systems so long that “conservatism,” like “capitalism,” has become a system in its own right — he who is not a Liberal is a “conservative;” he who is not a Socialist is a “capitalist.”  But that’s baloney.  There’s no such thing as “capitalism,” or a “capitalist” — there’s just the exchanging of stuff for other stuff, with each exchanger looking for the best deal for himself in the prevailing circumstances.  Ditto “conservatism” and “conservative” — there is Reality, and one either acknowledges Reality or one retreats into various flavors of jargony make-believe.  So let’s make that Step 0:

0. Acknowledge Reality, and abandon all vocabulary which implies that Reality can somehow be forced into alignment with some kind of intellectual system.

From there, it’s basically common sense.  An obvious consequence of 0 is

1. Make using the word “equality,” and any of its cognates, synonyms, and derivatives, outside of math class or #2, below, a jail-time offense.

This ought to be an easy sell to Liberals and Cucks alike, as they all “fucking love science.”  Humans are just evolved monkeys, no?  Primates have elaborately defined hierarchies, and we’re the apex primates.  You do believe in Evolution, don’t you?

2. Outside of math class, “equal” means “equal before the law.”  Equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Nobody gets anything because of their genetics, good or bad.  Yes, that means the smart-but-unscrupulous will generally profit at the expense of the dumb-but-good.  And that sucks, but hey, life’s not fair — and saying that it is, or should be, is now punishable by up to five years in federal pound me in the ass prison.

3. Yep, 0+1+2 = some people are going to get royally screwed, pretty much all the time.  But again, there is Reality, and there is Fantasy.  Conservatives are the Reality people.

In my glorious “conservative” regime, we will all have equal opportunity to play in the NBA, start a software company, fly a commercial airliner, and marry a supermodel.  Just as we will all have equal opportunity to become a meth addict, drop out of school, and spend all day tinkering with that old Camaro we’ve got up on blocks on the front lawn.  Some of us have a suite of genetic and cultural traits which predispose us to the former; some, to the latter.  But just as it makes no sense to insist that I could play in the NBA if I really really wanted to and trained hard (or I can’t because of “racism” or whatever), it also makes no sense to pretend that Cletus the meth-head up the holler could run Microsoft were it not for anti-redneck prejudice.**

And… that’s it, really.  There are few things I’d toss in if I had my druthers.  I’d acknowledge that centralization has been the trend in politics throughout human history, and set some hard limits on the size of governmental units.  I’d bring back property qualifications, poll taxes, and literacy tests with a vengeance.  Hell, I’d tie the franchise to military service (or, at least, being draft-eligible), and if you lose your vote because you’re 4F through no fault of your own, well, see #3, above.  I’d be disenfranchised under my own proposals, too.  But see #2 – I don’t get an exception to the rules because I’m the guy who came up with the rules.  I’d reinstall Christianity as the official state religion, as the need for a system is inherent to the human personality, and at its best Christianity gets the closest to institutionalizing numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3 than anything else.

But all that is lagniappe, as the rednecks among my friends and family like to say.   It’s really quite simple to “rebuild conservatism” — all it takes is a long hard look at Reality.

 

 

*”eschaton immanentizers,” to the connoisseurs.  It’s 1997, holla if ya hear me!

** As I understand these things, anti-redneck bias is cancelled out under the current dispensation by White Skin Privilege.  That’s why you see so many gap-toothed hillbillies running startups in Silicon Valley.

Vlad Loves Donald!

Donald Trump is, I’m told, a fascist.  Fascists, I’m told, are militarists.  Logically, then, the first thing President Trump would do is find an Existential Enemy, the better to whip up hate and resentment and a nice profitable war or two, no?

Why on God’s green earth, then, would Vladimir Putin be backing Donald Trump?  Half of America already thinks Putin is Stalin reincarnated (metaphorically, of course, since — American education being what it is — way more than half the population has never heard of Stalin).  If I were a Fascist, reigniting the Cold War would accomplish most of my goals at a stroke.  Vlad backing Donald is like the Yankees sending their cleanup hitter and their staff ace to the Red Sox to make things competitive again.

If I had to pick the one worst thing about America 2016, it would be “failure to listen to the very words that are coming out of one’s mouth.”

New Word Needed

Morgan likes inventing new words.  I’ve taken a few cracks at it myself.  But I’m stumped by this one.  What’s a good word for the idea that difference is a problem?

Maybe it’s a subspecies of solipsism.  You know the kind of thing I mean:

What does it mean for a man to be truly feminist? Is that even possible, or is a man only ever, at best, a feminist ally and a recovering misogynist? . . .
For feminist women, dating men can feel like a lose-lose proposition. Either you settle for someone who invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood, or you gamble on a man who claims to support your cause but may or may not actually give a s–t.

Admittedly, we’re so used to hearing marxoids talk like this that it’s just word salad — a pathetic mix of buzzwords lying limply there under a sneeze guard at the end of the intellectual buffet line.  But let’s take Ms. Sloan far more seriously than xyr deserves and actually analyze some of this verbiage.

Is it even possible for a man to be truly feminist?  Judging by feminists’ behavior I’d have to say no, but their dogma says yes.  Gender, like everything else, is just a “social construction,” which means people are completely malleable.  Arrange society just right — and shoot everyone who disagrees — and you’ll have the New Soviet Woman in no time.  It is, as Lenin assures us, science.  There is no difference; only apparent antitheses that have not yet been resolved into the glorious Marxist synthesis.

Which leads to

invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood

which is a fascinating equivalence, implying as it does that either A) politics are immutable, or B) one’s personhood can change at a moment’s notice if the mass line requires it.  In practice, of course, there’s no problem, since they all believe A but do B.  But think about how weird it must be to write a line like that.  Whatever “feminism” is today — and not even Ms. Sloan would, I think, argue that it came down complete from heaven like the Koran — then that’s what I am today.  It could be completely different tomorrow, and therefore so will I.

When you look at it that way, it’s clear that what these people really want is no distinctions whatsoever.  No difference at all.  Everything is what it is, and it always will be, and nothing can ever be different.  The True Believer is finally personality-less, merged into the all-consuming whole.

Is that just pathological solipsism?  Or something else — Acquired Marxoid Narcissism, maybe?  What do y’all think, Four Regular Readers?

Always Fighting the Last War

Funny how liberals say this to denigrate the military, when their entire thing is as retro as it gets.  It’s been that way since Karl Marx — that whole “capitalists own the means of production, peasants have nothing to sell but their labor, alienation, etc. etc.” deal is actually a spot-on description of feudalism, not industrial capitalism.  In the same way, they’ve been fighting the Civil Rights Movement for the last 50 years, as if tranny-free bathrooms were in any way equivalent to colored-only water fountains.

The last Liberal Great Awakening ended when their policies produced enough crime, stagflation, and international humiliation that their footsoldiers couldn’t stand it anymore.  But there’s not going to be any Reagan prosperity this time around….

It’s the end of an era, y’all.  Just to stick with a theme, let’s look at what happened at the end of the Middle Ages. We see the same things happening now.  For instance, a vast doubling-down on the outward trappings of the old order by the Elite.  Most of the stuff we think of as quintessentially “medieval” was a fabrication, of course, but it was a fabrication of the very last days, when the world it pretended to describe was almost totally gone.  The things that weren’t fabrications were elaborately useless — the expansion of the peerage while Parliament increasingly held all the real power; vast, days-long tournaments in 100 lb armor when firearms and pikemen made cavalry charges gaudy suicide.  Vastly expanded sumptuary laws to keep the nouveau riche from outshining the impoverished aristocracy; tighter and tighter guild monopolies to throttle international trade.  (Our Elite are the globalists now, but the principle is the same).  The most elaborate and sweeping declaration of papal supremacy was written in 1302, just as the Church was about to plunge into 200 years of schism and turmoil and, ultimately, Reformation.  And, of course, the Inquisition….

We — alt right and cuckservative and liberal and moonbat — are mostly still trying to process events under the old paradigms. The alt-right doesn’t understand economics much better than the moonbat left, so they try to shoehorn everything into “race realism” (and, of course, Teh Jooooos!).  The moonbats, meanwhile, cling to a notion of economics that was garbage in 1909, and a view of humanity that should’ve been decisively disproved in 1793.  The cucks still think we can definitively prove, with the postulates of Aristotelian dialectic, just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Meanwhile the tectonic plates keep shifting, and the earth rumbles….

It’s gonna be bad.  Hopefully just Reformation-in-England bad, not 30 Years’ War bad or World War I bad.  My money is on barbarians-crossing-the-Rhine bad….

If You Were Serious….

Co-Blogger Philmon has a category called Stop an Echo — challenging those moldy, rotten chestnuts that everyone “knows” but that ain’t so.  One of my favorite techniques for doing this is to take liberal claims seriously, and extrapolate the implications.  If they don’t have an answer to even the most incandescently obvious consequences of their statements, they’re just parroting talking points.  Like so:

imagesIf you really believe in Global Warming, why are you still driving a car?  Heck, why haven’t you shorted oil company stocks, and gone long in green tech?  You’ll make zillions!  Even if you don’t want to grubby up your hands with capitalism, have you done anything — anything at all — to modify your own personal lifestyle?  Or are you just getting off on telling other people what to do?

If you’re convinced there is no God, why do you keep picking fights with believers?  I don’t go out picking fights with liberals, because Reality’s gonna do that for me.  More to the point, has that ever worked?  Has the ol’ smirk-n-snark ever changed one single mind?  Doesn’t it bother you that, argument-wise, you’re the Washington Generals?  If you’re so wedded to facts and reason, shouldn’t your 0-and-whatever lifetime record be the slightest cause for concern?

If “reason” is so “heavily masculine-coded” that it’s just a buzzword, how do you expect to change any male minds?  We’re reasoners, after all — heck, according to you, that’s our main problem!  And if you don’t expect to change any male minds, how do you expect to break free of the shackles of Patriarchy that, according to you, is “the system which operates within a patriarchal social order to police and enforce women‘s subordination, and to uphold male dominance”?  Poor benighted male that I am, you’re going to have to give me some step-by-step instructions on how to “smash patriarchy.”  Do you have a manual I can read?

I’d love to learn some “Game.”  Problem is, I don’t have the time or the money to hit the clubs every night.  And I can’t really do “Day Game,” because I have a “day job.”  And I don’t live in a ginormous city, so there are a limited number of clubs to hit… and since I’m not already an expert, and since those clubs have regulars, I’m now well known as that creepy guy who keeps “stacking routines” to “initiate kino.”  I’ll keep plugging away — practice makes perfect! — but I have to assume I’m not the only guy with these problems.  If y’all are really out there “sarging” every night — and I totes believe you — there should be lots of resources on “how to get laid on $15 a night,” “how to keep bouncers from throwing you out because you keep bugging all their regular customers,” “how to look good in work clothes after hitting the clubs until 3am and waking up in a stranger’s bed on the other side of town,” and so forth.  Can y’all point me to some of those sites?

How do laws against murder fail to prevent murder?  Y’all keep telling me that mass shootings are the result of our pathetically inadequate gun control laws.  I’m all for passing the most draconian gun laws… as soon as you explain to me how those laws will work when the laws against murder don’t.  Jihad Johnny is heading out to shoot up a nightclub.  He’s got murder in his heart.  He knows it’s illegal — in fact, is a death penalty offense in a lot of jurisdictions– but he’s willing to sacrifice it all for Allah.  But then he sees a sign that says “no firearms permitted on premises” and calls it off…. right?  That’s really how it’s supposed to work, right?

Come to think of it, I have a similar question about drugs.  Y’all are all about pot legalization, because cannabis has all those medical benefits.  But… how do you know?  Pot possession has been illegal in every jurisdiction in the land for almost your entire lives.  Since passing gun control laws will — according to y’all — make sure nobody has access to guns, I have to assume that “pot control” laws have completely eliminated access to pot.  So how do you know how great getting high is?  Or is this all theoretical?

How much money is “enough?”  I really thought we’d get the answer to that one when Obama said “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”  As the press loves to hold Obama’s feet to the fire — according to y’all, the media has a conservative bias — I was certain they’d get Him to put a precise dollar figure on that… but no.  So it’s up to y’all.  Heck, round it off to the nearest thousand dollars; just give me a ballpark figure.

Speaking of, can you give me a similar figure for “fair share”?  Y’all keep insisting that all our financial woes would be solved if only “the rich” would pay their “fair share.”  What amount is that, to the nearest thousand?  How about the nearest percentage point?  And while you’re at it, could you give me a quick definition of “the rich”?  I’ll need to see the criteria on this one, not just the dollar figure, since there are so many ways to define “rich.”  Are we talking AGI, net worth, investable assets, what?  (Since you’re so deeply informed on financial matters, I assume you know what those are and how to calculate them).

And while we’re talking money, y’all assure me that so much of our current predicament stems from “deregulation.”  Well, there’s an easy fix for that!  Let’s re-pass all those old regulations.  But I’ll need you to remind me: which specific regulations were they?

Last money question, I promise:  How much should “health care” cost?  I know, I know, it’s waaaay too high now, and single payer will fix it.  I totes believe you about that, too.  But since some of my nearest and dearest work in the field, getting those health care costs where they should be is going to cause some big changes in their standard of living.  Doctors have student loans too, you know.  Am I going to have to put my heart surgeon nephew up on my couch for a few weeks while he finds a second job at the local Walmart?  How do they manage it up in Canada?

I’ve got lots more, but that’ll do for now.  Please leave your answers in the comments.  Thanks!

Propaganda Fail

I don’t care about Chickbusters, or whatever clever name we patriarchal troglodytes are supposed to be calling it.  (Honestly, I didn’t think the original was all that great anyway).  But I’m happy it’s flopping so hard.

Theodore Dalrymple has already written the epitaph of art in the West:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Chickbusters is overt propaganda.  It was designed to fail.  The original movie was funny (in the parts where it actually was funny) because of the chemistry between the four male leads — and everyone knows that.  Cast anyone other than Murray and Ackroyd as Venkman and Stantz, and the original would’ve bombed, too.  So… we’re supposed to laugh at the same “jokes” that wouldn’t have been funny delivered by any other two men on the planet, now that they’re being delivered by two women?

Riiight.

We’re supposed to say “Chickbusters isn’t funny,” to which the scripted reply is: “But it was funny when a man said it!”  No, it was two particular men who made it funny, but whatever.  Propaganda is as propaganda does.  I’m just glad that the public at large still recognizes it as such.  Not all is yet lost….

Fixing it Matters

Muslim man shoots up gay nightclub, claiming he did it in the name of ISIS and Allah.  But we don’t know the motive.  It must be Christian hatred and the NRA.

White cop shoots black man.  Has to be white racism.  Clearly there is no other explanation than systemic white racism.

#BlackLivesMatter.  #WhitePrivilege.

Over and over we find that the people peddling these hashtags have rushed their narrative to the media before the facts all come out — because they know what gets out there first sticks, and people have a natural instinct to root for the underdog. Saul Alinsky knew this and advised how to best do it to your advantage.  “Rules for Radicals” *is* the Bible for the American Leftist Activist.

We saw old younger pictures of an angelic-looking Michael Brown rather than the big thuggish bully he had grown to be.  The one who had just robbed a convenience store and assaulted the Indian manager, and who tried to wrestle a gun from a cop who had just advised him not to walk down the middle of the street.  Trayvon Martin was just a young innocent teen, shot for being black by a “White Hispanic”, not because he was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground in a potentially lethal fashion. And “White Hispanic” was a term they came up with out of whole cloth when it turned out the initial reports that Zimmerman was white turned out to be far more complex and in fact was actually raised with black other children.

I look at situations, not skin color.  They look at skin color regardless of the situation.

Now … is a police officer (white or black) more likely to fear for his life when confronting a black suspect than a white suspect?  Quite possibly, even probably.  Is this bad?  Yes it is.  Is it rational?

Yes it is.

Both of those things are true.  This is tragic.

So what do we, as a society, do about it?

Here’s what we DON’T do:  Blame white people.  Which is exactly what the terms, not accidentally chosen, “white privilege” and “black lives matter” do. The people peddling them claim it doesn’t, but the rest of their rhetoric and actions make it clear that this is exactly what they intend.

“Black Lives Matter” implies that white people don’t think that black lives matter – that the problem lies simply with white people seeing black skin and thinking somehow the person inside matters less.  It is insulting to white people. Even if it were true, insulting people is not the way to bring them to your side.  And the reality of the reaction being referenced is far more complex than that (which we’ll get to in a minute).  The suggestion is inherently racist.  The whole thing is divisive.  Divisiveness will not solve the problem.

The same goes, even more so, for “white privilege”.  White people are not privileged.  Black people are treated unfairly as individuals.  White people are being treated the way all people should be treated.  It’s nothing special. But black people *are* treated with more suspicion in our society.  And there are deep psychological reasons for this that have far more to do with culture than skin color.  And it is culture that is the underlying problem.

Consider this … why aren’t white people leery of Indian, Asian, Brazilian, or Polynesian Americans?  Why are even black people more leery of black strangers than strangers of other races (see Juan Williams et. al)?

It is the association with violent crime.  Violent crime is far more prevelant in the black population.  It wasn’t always this way.  It is something that developed during the latter half of the last century.  But it’s real.

Now the other side will argue that it’s not, it’s just a disproportionate number are picked up because they’re watched more carefully.  And the numbers may skew slightly higher for that reason, I will acknowledge.  But it’s not responsible for all of it, or even most of it.

The fact of the matter is, if race is what it’s about, black lives apparently matter far less to black people than they do to white people — most black people who are killed are killed by other black people, typically gang on gang.  This is a cultural issue.  And in the modern, Western Civilization worldview (before it was bastardized by Marxist shills) culture is not dependent on race.  There may be correlation.  But race is not the cause.  It is this correlation which must be broken to solve the problem.  This cannot be done by denying the correlation.

The Marxist shills, however, are interested in keeping us divided, for they want to build coalitions of aggrieved people to overthrow the order of Liberty.  This is called (by them … most of us hadn’t heard of it until 2008) “Community Organizing”.  They don’t really want it fixed, so they deny the correlation and insist everyone do the same. They use it to push their cause de jour.

They want the black American community to feel aggrieved, and to feel that they are powerless to change their lot outside of demanding concessions from “white” America.   It is also in the shills’ interest to keep white America aggravated to help justify the narrative that whites hate blacks and live to keep them down and protect their “privilege”.

The truth is, the rest of America would love for black America to be just as “privileged” as it is.  That is, it would love for black Americans to be treated the way all people should be treated.

The best way for that to happen is … assimilation.  Like the Italians.  Like the Irish.  Like Asian Americans, and a lot of American Indians, and Indian (dot!) Americans, and Hispanic Americans.  You can keep cultural elements as a part of your identity, but to join our culture, you can’t insist on a separate one.  You have to join it.  Melting pot. Remember?

This problem cannot be solved overnight.  And white people cannot solve it for black people by turning a blind eye or tolerating bad behavior so as not to appear “racist”.  Everybody black, white, whatever — must hold themselves to the same basic standards.  No races elevated or denegrated.

I always find it fascinating that the people who scream the loudest about racism make absolutely *everything* about race.  There’s nothing more racist than that.