The Zeroth Law Of SJWs

A guest post by Nate Winchester:

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing it is thus:
SJW ism is Marxism for social capital.

Definitions

I’m a computer guy by trade so it’s old habit for me to define variables at the start (I also notice that most debates on the Internet boil down to a misunderstanding of terms).

Marxism– the principle that things should be as equitable as possible. Example: If I have a $100 and you have $0 then Marxism proscribes we both have $50.

Social Capital– This is going to be tricky because pointing SC out to people is like trying to get fish grasp the concept of “water.” Honor, Reputation, Respect, Friendship, even Privilege are all terms for things that cover a wide swath of SC and are sometimes used as synonyms but don’t quite equal the totality. The reality of SC becomes especially apparent when you move to a new town.  In my hometown if my car breaks down, I know which tow service is the best to call, which garage does the best work & is the most honest, which friends are free/busy to give me a ride, who can loan me a car, and backups for all of the above in case something goes wrong with my first choice.  But when I move to a new town and my car breaks down?  I have none of that.  I don’t know which tow service will get the job done promptly, or which garage will give me an honest deal, I have no friends that can give me a ride and no cars to borrow.  Social capital is the catch all term for EVERYTHING social around you.  If you want an easier way to measure it, the simplest would probably be funeral attendance.  The more SC you have, the fewer empty seats at your service.

Thesis

If you are reading this, you are probably at least vaguely aware of social justice warriors (SJW) and their most recent vocal complaints. (for fun, post what was the most recent complaint at the time of reading – it should paint interesting historical patterns)  A lot has been written on SJWs, whole books even, but if you’re like me, you can’t help but notice that while everything which can be said about SJWs has been said it all seems… off.  There’s something missing to bring it all together, but what?

It finally hit me when I read this article by the federalist, which (with some irony) goes over plenty of things I already knew (if you keep up with comics, you’re very familiar with SJWs).  But like in the movies, gathering it all together and going over it again might be all the detective needs to catch what he missed before.

See, one thing you learn is that people can be very bad about explaining what they want.  For example, little kids will often say they’re hungry when they’re not.  But they know that hunger is a bad feeling of discomfort so any feeling they have which isn’t comfortable is thus expressed as “hungry.”  Likewise SJWs, further handicapped by an extensive “knowledge” edifice dedicated to obfuscating language, end up with a need for which they cannot vocalize.  And like the toddlers who want something other than the food their parents are shoving into their face, the SJWs get frustrated and begin caterwauling as loudly as they can (thus why often giving SJWs what they say they want leads to them being angrier and more enraged – but that’s another thesis for another day).

However these SJWs are ostensibly adults, they SHOULD be able to communicate, why can they not vocalize their needs?  Because modern society has lost the ability to verbalize and discuss social capital in any meaningful way. (If you want an example, just look at how many seem unable to get some of the basic concepts spelled out in the Holy Bible – like Jesus’ parable of the shrewd manager which is, in the literal sense about a man trading literal capital for social capital.)  And once you realize the true nature of SC, it all makes sense.

And part of SC (and what makes it so complex) is that it doesn’t always apply to only humans.  For example, let’s look at comics.  If I say “Superman” SOMETHING pops into your mind (yes, even if you, dear reader, are from another country, the odds are that you STILL know who Superman is) in fact several things probably pop into your mind.  ALL of that, everything that your brain conjured is social capital for Superman.  No, he doesn’t exist, he’s just a fictional character, but he still has social capital invested in him because of humanity nature towards stories.  A fictional character that has some meaning to you, no matter how small, is a character with some SC.

By now you’re probably starting to see it too, and you realize something else: everything about social capital is HARD.  Regular money is a symbol, an agreed upon representation of meaning by people which give it some amount of power and that makes it easy to deal with.  Thus the belief of marxism, if we take all the money and evenly distribute it (which can at least conceptually be done) then we’ll all be better off!  We’ll have even power at last!

Except not really, because the power isn’t in capital but social capital (this is what Jonah Goldberg speaks of when he says it’s not money that corrupts, but friendship).  Money can be stolen, it can be taxed, it can be distributed.  SC cannot.  I cannot hit you over the head and take your reputation.  I cannot break into your house and steal your friends.  I can’t pass a law that everyone has to trust me like they trust you (well I could but it would be unenforceable).  No, SC can only be gained by years and years of work and effort and… living*.

Thus we bring it all back to the article by the federalist and SJW demands that popular characters be gay or trans or plaid or whatever is the group de jour of the day.  When I brought up Superman earlier, you thought of something.  If I were to mention “Midnighter” the number of you reading this who have ANY thoughts or opinions pop into your head at the name is much much less (indeed he’s pretty much unknown outside the hard core comic fans).  That’s what upsets the SJWs, the SC in Superman’s bank is far greater than in Midnighter’s (or any other character they might pick).  This is ultimately what they mean when they speak of “privilege.”  The problem is, all the SC built up by these comic characters, by star wars, by anything you hear them complain about, took years, decades, GENERATIONS to build upon the investments of the creators.  And the SJWs don’t want to wait that long.  Whichever group is the victim of the hour (and by victim they mean, “possessing less SC than I think they should have”) they want that group to occupy your feelings and memories the way “Superman” does.  The way “Luke Skywalker” does.  The way “Frodo Baggins” does.

Thus, “SJWism is all about marxism for social capital.”

*Yes there is an issue with media & rumors and how they affect SC but that’s another thesis for another time.  But you should at least notice that getting the media/rumors/etc to all agree on robbing someone’s SC still takes more effort and work than just lifting the same person’s wallet.

Rape Roundup

Stacy McCain reports on the latest insanity from Yale:

Brunch is the ideal time to do it. Dinner is usually too crowded, and lunch and breakfast are so rushed that I don’t have the time. On any given weekend, I arrive at a dining hall past noon, usually with leggings and a warm, knit sweater. I swipe my card.
Then I count the amount of rapists in the room.….
I can’t speak about other campuses because I know only this one, but Yale has an epidemic. Each day, students fear for their safety as they walk across campus. Whether stepping into the library or taking a seat in a classroom, they’re reminded of some of the most traumatizing moments of their lives.

I’ve spent some time in the Ivy League, and I can assure you that living in the land of the Old School Tie does not grant one magical rapist-spotting powers.  Plus, I’ve been to New Haven.  It looks like somebody set Oxford down in the middle of South-Central LA.  If there’s any rape happening, the membership of Skull and Bones should be about #602 on the police’s suspect list.

Speaking of the police… where the hell are they in all this?  Again, this is the Ivy League.  I have personally witnessed the daughters of very prominent people — people who could probably get Delta Force called out — wandering between off-campus bars in the dead of night.  Are we really supposed to believe that there’s a “rape epidemic” happening where half the political class of several dozen nations, not to mention CEOs, generals, etc., send their teenage daughters?

I think Matt Forney’s advice to those accusing him of rape is sound:

In the U.S., rape is not only illegal, it’s a felony. If you think someone is a rapist, you owe it to their victim(s) to contact law enforcement. Therefore, I have a challenge for feminists…

If you think that I’m a rapist, call the police.

I live in Chicago, as does my purported victim, so all you have to do is call the Chicago Police Department’s non-emergency hotline at 312-746-6000. In fact, if you live in Chicago, you don’t even have to go that far: just dial 311. Tell them that you believe that Rogers Park resident Matt Forney has raped a woman and you want the police to investigate and arrest him.

That’s it. If you’re convinced that I’m a rapist and you want to do something about it, all you have to do is call the cops.

It says here that there were 80 reported rapes in New Haven in the last reporting period — 0.61 per 1,000 people.  Which is still 0.61 too many, but the absolute fastest way to put that number at zero where it should be is to call the police.  If this woman really knows that the rapists she spots in the dining hall are guilty, why the hell isn’t she on the phone to the cops?  Instead of yelling at professors about Halloween costumes, shouldn’t they be out picketing the New Haven Police Department?

 

Another Pop Quiz

Why would anyone lie about having read these?

David Copperfield I get, I guess — if you’ve read Dickens, you’re “cultured” (everyone forgets that Dickens was the Stephen King of his day).  But what virtue-signalling culture points do you get from lying about Harry Potter?

For the record, unlike the Fascism quiz I don’t know the answer here.  I’m honestly curious.  And for the record, here are my answers:

  1. Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland – Lewis CarrollNope.  Victorian lit in general bores me stiff; I don’t see any reason to read it.  
  2. 1984 – George OrwellYes, and it’s great.  I hated it when I first read it (required reading in high school — imagine that!), but because I thought it was supposed to be sci fi.  As if any school would ever be that cool.  Hey, nobody said I was real bright.
  3. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy – JRR TolkienNo.  I tried three or four times, and it put me to sleep.  I assume it gets good after that cutesy dork’s birthday party, but since that goes on for like the first 400 pages….
  4. War And Peace – Leo Tolstoy — Tried, and failed.  You need a flowchart to keep up with all the names.  I don’t want to have to take notes on my pleasure reading.
  5. Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy — Ditto.
  6. The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes – Arthur Conan Doyle — Can’t say I’ve read all of them, but a good amount.  I went through a detective phase back when I was 11 or so.
  7. To Kill A Mockingbird – Harper Lee — Required reading in high school.  It appears racism is bad. 
  8. David Copperfield – Charles Dickens — No. I never got the appeal of Dickens.
  9. Crime And Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky — Cf. Russian novels, above.  I’ve given this one a go and found it good enough to probably come back to when I have time for deep, depressing, 800-page tomes….
  10. Pride And Prejudice – Jane Austen — High school required reading.  Even the chicks were bored by it.
  11. Bleak House – Charles Dickens — No.  Cf Dickens, mystified by the appeal of, above. 
  12. Harry Potter (series) – JK Rowling — I’m not a chick, I’m not a child, and I have no pressing reason to pretend to be either.
  13. Great Expectations – Charles Dickens — High school required reading.  This one is all the Dickens I’ll ever need.
  14. The Diary Of Anne Frank – Anne Frank — High school required reading.  Turns out Nazis are bad.
  15. Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens — No.
  16. Fifty Shades trilogy – EL James — No.  I wonder if this list includes folks who actually have read stuff, but don’t want to admit it. 
  17. And Then There Were None – Agatha Christie — I read some Agatha Christie back in my detective phase.  Definitely Murder on the Orient Express, but I don’t remember if I read this one or not.
  18. The Great Gatsby – F Scott Fitzgerald — Twice.  Once, as required HS reading, and hated it.  Then I read it again, to see how my tastes had changed since then.  It was pretty good on a second go.
  19. Catch 22 – Joseph Heller — Yes, and it’s hilarious.  Which is odd, because I normally hate surrealist humor. 
  20. The Catcher In The Rye – JD Salinger — Oh God yes, and I am eternally thankful to J.D. Salinger for it.  Since it’s one of those books certain people can’t help bringing up, it’s great for helping me avoid human toothaches.  If you liked Catcher, I hate you.  If you consider yourself “the Holden Caulfield of ____,” I want to strangle you with your school tie.  I thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious little shit who needed nothing more in this world than a good beating, back when I myself was a pretentious little shit in desperate need of a good beating.  Luckily, I got mine; the folks who like Catcher never did.

My Iowa Prediction – UPDATED

Trump, of course.

Honestly, I hadn’t thought much about it, as the Iowa caucus is the most ridiculous, overrated political institution in America.  Loony no-hopers like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum always do well there, because they can flog the gospel of Corn Socialism with the kind of lunatic conviction a viable general-election candidate simply can’t.

But recent polling suggests that the only obvious panderers to the “Jesus loves ethanol!” crowd — Carson, Huckabee, and Yeb! — are in single digits.  I’ve heard that Cruz told the ethanol lobby to have intimate congress with itself, which rules him out (though the Z Man makes a decent case for a Cruz victory here).

I don’t know what Rubio’s position on ethanol is, though I assume he’s fanatically for it when in front of farmers and adamantly against it everywhere else…. in short, he’s an Establishment cuck of the first order, and I don’t think even Archer Daniels Midland can save him now.  Though Ace of Spades makes an interesting case that it can — or, more accurately, that being the “safe” choice can, as it did Romney and all the other cucks who went on to crater in the general election:

A friend proposed to me that Trump would never win, as Cruz would never win, because, in the end, Republicans will do what Republicans have been doing for 30 years, settling, unenthusiastically, on a choice that seems “safe.”

The idea is that one should ignore all the particulars of a race — candidate personality, agenda, etc. — and focus on the structural underpinnings which decide most races.

Republicans, he reminded me, aren’t all bloggers or angry young men who can just shrug off the possibility of massive upheavals or political chaos. They own businesses. They have mortgages. They have, crucially, children.

All of these things make them more risk-averse in their political choices than they might be if ideology were their primary motivator.

Fair enough.  But, ultimately, I think this little factoid will be the deciding factor:

Over the past 15 years, the Latino population in Iowa more than doubled. And today’s population is expected to almost triple by 2050. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 40,000 undocumented immigrants live in Iowa, up from 5,000 two decades ago.

And they’re so blatant about it!  You’ll notice that these nine “undocumented Iowans” weren’t speaking anonymously, from a secret location, with ICE hot on their trail.  One charming abuelita, a Martin O’Malley fan, “has been living in Iowa for more than two decades.”

And that’s where Ace’s friend’s “structural” argument fails.  All those “safe choice” Republican voters won’t have businesses much longer, and their children will be growing up poorer, colder, and far less safe…. unless.

It ought to be interesting.  If I’m right about the national mood, and Iowans share that mood — two big ifs — Trump wins in a walk.  If he doesn’t, we’ll learn something interesting about the zeitgeist.

Either way, it ought to be a hoot.

 

Update 2/2/2016: His partisans are calling a 4-point Cruz win “commanding.”  Which it may be in the context of the Iowa caucuses, but… four points.  The media are already anointing Marco Rubio the winner for almost finishing second — which is, you know, technically third — but hey, he’s the only shot they have left.  I wonder if Yeb! even makes it to New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, Hillary won with a coin flip.  Who says we don’t have an informed, responsible electorate?

A Phrase that Pays

Nice: “The Obama generation associates staring at a glass pacifier with leadership.”

In my not-inconsiderable experience with Millennials, that’s true. If it’s not blinking at you from your smartphone, it’s not real.

As for the rest of his comments on Rand Paul, I have no opinion.  I’d honestly forgotten that he was even a thing, much less still running for President.  And “libertarianism” is just Unitarianism for evangelical atheists.  Still, if you want some fun shivving of the GOP nomination clown show, give the rest of Forney’s reportage from Iowa a look.

Megyn Antoinette

I’m trying to come up with a rationale for this brilliant move from Fox News:

Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.

Here’s the visual portrayal in question, in case you’re curious:

Noor-Trump-Hitler-640x480If the candidates tell this loon to get stuffed, it’s wall to wall coverage about how the GOP is racist and sexist.  If they don’t, they’ll have to…. agree with this loon that the GOP is racist and sexist.  Basically, it’s “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”, but five times as long and without even the barest rhetorical form of a question.  This is the kind of cheap, bush-league shit MSNBC would pull if they hosted Republican debates… and the moderator was Rachel Maddow… and she had one night to live.

So why on Earth would Fox News do this to their own party?

I have two guesses, neither complimentary to the intelligence of everyone involved.  The first is something like “Trump chemotherapy.”  The Cuckservatives are so determined to bring down Donald Trump that they’re willing to torpedo their own to do it.  As chemo kills cancer cells just slightly faster than it kills healthy ones, they’re betting that the sight of their boy Marco Rubio slobbering all over this spastic towelhead will be slightly less damaging to him than the sum total of all the other attacks will be to Trump.  It’s stupid — the mere sight of that chick at a supposedly conservative event will probably bump Donald five points in the polls — but at least it’s a bit of strategic thinking.  Stupid, stupid strategic thinking — invading Russia at the end of the summer-level stupid, just to stick with a theme — but not utterly incomprehensible.

The other possible explanation is that the Media really do consider themselves the tastemakers.  That, despite all evidence, they think can simply tell us what we care about, and what this election is supposed to mean.  Their greatest fear is being called racist, so they figure — no, they know — that that’s our biggest fear, too.  On this reading, people who would otherwise be inclined to support Trump’s “deport ’em all” platform will see that being kind and caring and oh so accommodating to folks who want to rape and murder us is truly “who we are,” as that great Republican, George W. Obama, is wont to say.

Maybe it’s a little from column A, a little from column B.  Whatever it is, though, it’s damn entertaining.  I haven’t seen this much concentrated stupidity since nickel beer night at the frat house, or that one time a took a feminism seminar in grad school.  Send in the clowns.  No, all of them — we’re gonna need ’em.

Who is Caesar?

Nate Winchester suggested a logical followup to the “Who is Caesarism For?” post:

Who is Caesar?

Let’s use an illustration.  In the run-up to the American Civil War, abolitionist propaganda increasingly focused on a “Slave Power Conspiracy.”  Slaveholders were a small part of the electorate, they argued, yet every single political dispute seemed to go their way.  The Missouri Compromise, the annexation of Texas, war with Mexico, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act… all seemed designed to add to the number of slave states in the Union.  Slaveholders controlled the Democratic Party, and the few Whigs who won the Presidency, like Zachary Taylor, were slaveholders.  They dominated the Supreme Court, too, and with the Dred Scott decision, they effectively legalized slavery throughout the United States.

All of that is true.  In fact, it under-states the case — while the average slaveholder owned a midsize farm with ten or less slaves, the average slave worked on a plantation with at least 100 others.  Given that only a quarter of Southerners owned slaves, the math is clear: a very few slaveholders owned nearly all the slaves.  How, then, did this tiny fraction of the electorate come to dominate American politics for three generations?

In short, they controlled the discourse.

Take the Democratic Party.  I wrote that slaveholders controlled the Democratic Party, and that’s true… but it wasn’t blatant, and — crucially — most Democrats didn’t think so at the time.  There are countless detailed political histories sitting unread on a college library shelf near you.  Pick one up, and you’ll see all kinds of stuff about “soft-shells” and “hard-shells,” “barn-burners” and “hunkers,” the tariff question, the money issue, the Bank of the United States, Young America, Manifest Destiny…. you can read hundreds and hundreds of pages without ever seeing the word “slavery.”  But when the dust settled after every internal Democratic Party upheaval — and every general election — the slaveholders got their way.  Because Southern senators always closed ranks, something pro-slavery got thrown into every deal, be it an internal Democrat matter or a national issue….

….and nobody ever had to publicly say so, because that was just a part of doing business.  Southern planters (and their money boys in New York City) won all the victories, but the battles took place over the hills and far away.  Such that, by 1852, ridiculous nonentities like Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott were battling it out over things like who looked prettiest during the Mexican War.

That’s caesarism.  The Elite gets what it wants — in this case, protection and advancement for slavery — while the passions of the potentially revolutionary classes are channeled into petty partisan squabbles.  Caesar, therefore, is the elite who does the channeling, and who — crucially — can’t impose his will without the sham.  The original Caesar, of course, was assassinated, and the caesar of the Slave Power Conspiracy was exposed in 1856… and destroyed by 1865.

Who is Caesarism For?

A response to RW, below, that has above-the-fold applicability.

RW asks, “Who’s buying into any of this drama-rama?”

The folks who have the most at stake in an actual Revolution.

Caesarism isn’t for “the masses” — they get bread and circuses (=iCrap).  This is the strategy behind the EBT cards — as should be obvious to everyone by now, EBT cards are just anti-riot payoffs.  We provide the ghettopotami with a pretty luxurious lifestyle* in exchange for not burning the inner cities down; urban policing is largely a matter of keeping ghetto dysfunction contained within the ghetto.  This applies to any ghetto you like, including the white ones up the holler and wherever Eminem grew up.  It’s the reason movements like “Black Power” and the KKK never get anywhere — there’s just no point to the revolution they preach, as the risk is very real, but the payoff is….?  They don’t want their “freedom,” and wouldn’t take it if it were offered on a silver platter.

But — and this is important, before you send me the angry caps-lock comments, please read it carefully — most people wouldn’t.  That’s why “bread and circuses” work.  Think about what a Revolution actually entails, even if you aren’t even fighting in the rebel army:

  • disruption of basic services, like food, water, electricity
  • vast fear and uncertainty
  • no money, and no jobs

&c.  And the payoff for all this is….?  Most folks won’t do it.  And most folks wouldn’t take it, even absent the bullet points on that list, because what would you do with it?  Your new nation is likely to be smaller, poorer, shabbier, and colder than the old one…. and plus that, now you actually have to pay attention to stuff, participate in elections, maybe serve on a workers’ council or do a hitch in the militia.  It’s just not worth it to the Tumblr-and-Twitter crowd, to say nothing of the honest-to-god proletariat.  If Caesar is doing his job right, it will never be worth it….and if he’s doing his job wrong, he’s got a whole bunch of much bigger problems.  So: you don’t need the whole caesarism dog-n-pony show to keep the masses docile.  And the proof is: the masses don’t vote.  They might punch whatever ticket the shop steward asks them to, but their hearts aren’t in it.  Most of “the masses” couldn’t name a single branch of government, let alone any of the occupants, and certainly not what any of them actually do.

Similarly, revolution isn’t worth it to the upper classes, or even — crucially — the upper-middle classes.  They have way more to lose in the Revolution but, more importantly, they always have the possibility of moving up under the old regime.  The Managerial Elite always needs some new blood, and everyone knows how to get there — go to the right schools, meet the right people, mouth the right opinions, vote for the right party.  They already lead pretty cushy lives, with a shot at real opulence; they won’t risk it.  They know how the game is really played — at least, they think they do — and since they think they’re in on the con, caesarism isn’t for them either.  They’d be happy to dispense with it, of course, but playing along costs them nothing, and they get a little thrill from putting one over on the rubes.

It’s the downwardly-mobile middle class who have the most skin in the revolution game, and they’ve been the instigators of every revolution in modern times.  Pick any one you like — you’ll find that the leadership always comes from middle-class guys who are absolutely blocked from going up, and in real danger of going down.  This was the case in the English Civil War (artisans and tradesmen), the French Revolution (the Parisian petite bourgeoisie), the revolutions of 1848 (displaced artisans and disgruntled intellectuals), the Russian Revolution (ditto), the Nazi revolution (shopkeepers and ex-NCOs), any “postcolonial” insurgency (the sons of shopkeepers, educated past their hat size in Paris or Moscow)…. Something has to be done to keep these people from realizing that they’re going to be proletarianized anyway, so might as well roll the dice.

Those are the folks who need the sham of representative government.  They have to feel like they have a real chance of effecting change but — alas!! — keep coming up juuuuust short of the requisite number of votes.

An analogy: Think of what would happen to your company if all the senior management went on strike for some reason.  Most of us probably can’t even name our division manager, our regional sales coordinator, our assistant vice president in charge of whatever.  Life for us in the cube farm would go on pretty much as before, but for the assistant associate regional VP of whatever, it’d be devastating — he’d never work in the industry again.  Which is why senior management never goes on strike.

Then think of what happens if the rank-and-file go on strike.  A brief disruption, but then management just fires all the phone monkeys, burger-flippers, wrench-turners, etc. and hires new ones.  No great loss… heck, maybe even a net benefit, as the new guys won’t be nearly so uppity after seeing what happened to the last bunch.

Now, imagine what happens if middle management goes on strike.  I know, I know, we all like to joke about how useless anyone with a title on his business card is, but really think about it for a sec.  Those are the project leaders, the office coordinators, the accounting supervisors… they can’t easily be replaced from outside, and you can’t just promote some phone monkeys either.  The company won’t collapse if the Head of IT quits, and it won’t suffer more than a quarter’s hit if all the tech support drones walk, but if all the team leads go…..

Caesarism, then, is only designed to work on a very small number of people — the lower professional classes, junior army officers and senior NCOs, media types, “intellectuals,” and so on.  You know, the very same people who are now the loudest Trump / Sanders supporters.  The goal is to convince them that the status quo is worth preserving, because the possibility of meaningful change is just over the horizon.  The minute they see that it isn’t, though, they start thinking about worst-case scenarios… and they’re the folks with the skills, brains, and drive to actually get a Revolution done.**

 

 

 

 

*Yes it is, by the standards of 99.99% of human history and 99.7% of the world right now.  Have you seen how illegals live?  And yet they keep coming, as it’s still better than life in their shitholes-of-origin.

** I didn’t want to derail the post by putting it in the main body, but you can see what a Revolutionary looks like by studying the commies.  Remember, one of the main goals of all communist regimes was to export the Revolution, so they had detailed instructions on how to recruit and train professional revolutionaries (called “cadres”).  The best background for a productive cadre was, of course, a disaffected lower-middle-class or upper-working-class “intellectual” who felt stifled — who felt he had no real opportunities for personal and professional advancement, and who felt that nobody appreciated his gifts.  And if that sounds like a pitch-perfect description of an SJW, well, that’s — as the Marxists say — “no accident.”  Here’s how it’s done, by someone who had it done to him.

This is Elizabeth Warren’s Moment

Via Ace of Spades:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Ace thinks the Justice Department won’t indict, and I think so as well.  But if Elizabeth Warren were to “suddenly” enter the race…

Think about it: The Dems know they pretty much have to run a woman this cycle — Diversity Bingo is the only strategy they have left, and “woman” is the only open square remaining on their card.  Bernie Sanders might carry the day against one of the more obvious Cucks — because 99% of former Republicans will simply stay home on election day — but there’s no way he out-demagogues Trump.

And since “being a fake Indian for fun and profit” is a far lesser offense than high treason, she’s about as clean as a Democrat is going to get.  Plus, you know Obama hates Hillary and would love to put the screws to her.  How hard would it be to convince Him, of all people, to be the Savior of the Party by throwing the book at Evita and clearing the decks for Fauxcahontas?

Lizzie, baby… this is your best shot.

[And if you like that, remember: I think Western Civ is fucked anyway.  I just want to get paid while the fires burn… and I work almost as cheap as an “undocumented American.”  I got a million more where that came from.  Call me!]