Why I’m Not a Liberal, Part II

Because I’m non-binary.

No, I’m not a golden-skinned wingless dragonkin or anything like that.  I mean I can do what Aristotle said is the hallmark of an educated mind: I can entertain an idea without accepting it.  Our Betters, the Liberals, markedly lack this capacity.

It’s a top-down problem.  From the top: It’s shocking that folks who proclaim themselves science’s BFFs at every opportunity are so bad at inductive reasoning.  For instance, here’s a list of Nobel prize winners in the sciences (plus economics and the “peace” prize), sortable by country of origin and number of laureates per capita.  Fiddle with the tabs all you want; several things become immediately clear:

  • only one nonwhite-majority nation (Japan) has more than 10 total prizes.
  • of nations with 10 or more, only 2 — Japan and India — aren’t primarily Judeo-Christian.
  • the only non-majority white countries with 10 or more (India, South Africa, Japan) have gotten Western Imperialism good and long and hard.*

If you strip out the ludicrous “peace” prize — you know, the one that Barack Obama famously won before ever stepping foot in the Oval Office — it’s whiter than a polar bear eating a mayo sandwich on wonderbread in a blizzard.  Tiny Poland (population 38 million) has the same number of science prizes as China (pop. 1.4 billion).  From this, an inductive reasoner would conclude that there’s something about Whiteness and Christianity — or what we quaintly used to call “Western Civilization” — that is favorable to scientific discovery.

Liberals would just scream “rayciss!” and report you to the Thought Police.

Nor are Our Betters particularly good at deductive reasoning.  For proof, I give you the collected works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (50 vols.).  According to Marxists themselves, nothing could be more scientific than Marxism, which lays down the Universal Laws of History and deduces from them all kinds of things which must — not may, but must! — happen.  Pretty much every single prediction Marx ever made has been wrong.  This is why we now have “cultural Marxism,” Third Wave Feminism, Leninism, Maoism, and Postmodernism, to name just a few — Marx was wrong.  He was wrong in general, and he was wrong in detail, so much so that the deduction

if Karl Marx said X would happen, it didn’t

is all but universally true.

Liberals, of course, would scream that logic is rayciss, and report you to the Thought Police.

The reason Liberals are bad at both flavors of reasoning, of course, is that they’re binary thinkers.  Outside of the most rigorously formal logic — the kind that’s indistinguishable from math to non-STEM majors — reasoning works on supposition.  Suppose X is true; where does that lead?  For non-Liberals, this is an interesting thought experiment.  For Liberals, this is the first step on the slippery slope to heresy.  Suppositions are not Approved Thoughts, and only Approved Thoughts are proof against potentially heretical conclusions.

I’m not saying I’m the world’s greatest thinker — I barely scraped out a C- in Logic 101, as I recall — but the very notion of supposing something doesn’t slam my sphincter shut.  Hence, I’m not a Liberal.

But forget all that philosophy hooey.  In everyday life, too, Liberals are the most binary people on the planet.  You know how, according to the Left, Clarence Thomas isn’t “really” Black, Sarah Palin isn’t “really” a woman, and so on?  We tend to write that off as typical Liberal hyperventilating, but it’s not.  They really believe it.  Good little Marxoids that they are, their mental world only makes sense if everyone is ONE thing and ONE thing only, always and everywhere.  They’re functionally autistic: They see a woman (or, more properly, a Woman) and their programming kicks in — “oh, she’s a Woman; run Approved Thoughts subroutine XX.”  A pro-life woman, say, fries their circuits… ergo, the breasted, be-vaginaed, XX-chromosomed entity that says such heretical things is not really a woman.  Gender is just a social construction!!!

[This is why, BTW, Liberals have to turn e.g. Star Wars into SJWars.  Luke Skywalker is an archetype.  We hardly expect rich characterization of a stock character, and in the original trilogy Luke is little more than a farm kid with self-esteem issues, but even that is too nuanced for the Left.  Luke is male, you see, and you know what lurking potential thoughtcriminals those males are.  So of course the new trilogy has to put Girl Luke into the exact same plot, even if that plot doesn’t make sense for a girl — Luke’s grownup identity is shaped by his interaction with wise old Father Figure Obi Wan and cocky-but-dissolute Older Brother Han Solo.  Girl Luke will no doubt do the same sorts of things with a Mother Figure and an Older Sister, but as anyone who has actually been around a girl knows, girls don’t work that way.  So Girl Luke will do Guy Things and it won’t make a damn lick of sense, but everyone will look the right way, so it’ll be a good movie].

If I had to guess, this kind of thing is mostly genetic.  There seem to be two broad types of people in this world: Those who think this world is all we can know, and those who just know there’s another, better world out there that could be brought into this one… if only we could rip away the veil and see it.  It has always been thus; the “this is not the real world” thing is at least as old as Parmenides (late 6th century BCE).  Liberals believe they’re living in the Matrix — and, of course, subscribing to the SJW catechism makes them Neo.  Some of the rest of us put our faith in the next world, but know that we can only truly know this one… and not too much of that.

I’m comfortable with my own ignorance, which is why I’m willing to entertain — if only for the sake of argument — other views.  Our Betters, obviously, are not.

 

 

*You don’t think Japan’s deliberate, fanatic adoption of all things Western in the Meiji era counts as imperialism?  What about the postwar occupation?  That’s pretty much the definition of “cultural imperialism,” you rayciss.

Loading Likes...

4 thoughts on “Why I’m Not a Liberal, Part II

  1. Frip

    “For non-Liberals, this is an interesting thought experiment.”

    Oddly enough, I don’t recall seeing the term “non-Liberals”, before your post today. I’m not a writer but I think all of us often find ourselves groping for terms that mean “normal people”, “non political people”, or those who “lean Right”, etc. “Non-Liberals” is very handy. It also rightfully casts them as “other/alien”. Like, “us non-HIV folk”. “Us non-child molesters”.

    “They see a woman and their programming kicks in — “oh, she’s a Woman; run Approved Thoughts subroutine XX.” Funny as shit.

    It’s helpful that the term “binary” has come into the social vocabulary in recent years. It used to be an awkward mouthful to say in conversation, “you’re a black and white thinker”, or “I’m not a black and white thinker.”

    An aspect of binary thinking is that women love pleasant things. And the pleasant thing must be completely pleasant. It’s like when we look at a pretty painting with a small chip. It ruins the whole painting. Or how one small stain on a shirt renders it unwearable until washed. We’re all visually anal and neurotic…visually binary. But Leftists see the whole world like this. It must be 100% pleasing. NOTHING to mar the picture.

    I had a Liberal gf once. We were looking at WWII antiques and were caught up in soldier nostalgia. We spotted some old war journals. And I mentioned that one of the great weights/worries on soldiers’ minds was that their women back home would cheat on them or even leave them for a new guy. She just outright said, “No…no they didn’t worry about that….that wouldn’t happen.” My little factoid ruined the whole pristine picture for her and she rejected it easily, immediately, and completely. Soldiers were brave. Their women were faithful. Period. Severian: “Their mental world only makes sense if everyone is ONE thing and ONE thing only”. There’s a reason why the term Pollyanna take the name of a woman.

    “So Girl Luke will do Guy Things and it won’t make a damn lick of sense, but everyone will look the right way, so it’ll be a good movie.”

    That was right on. The following has probably been covered a million times, anyway…I think most non-Liberal guys would agree that it’s harder than ever watching movies with normie girls (not even talking about Liberal/Feminists girls).

    I watch “Game of Thrones” with a normy girl, where girls are always kicking guys’ asses. And not just the typical dopey castle guards. There’s a big male character who’s supposedly THE best swordsman/fighter/warrior/badass in the world. And this tall lesbian chick beats him in this “epic one-on-one” fight scene, and leaves him for dead.

    That’s the literal equivalent of Ronda Rousey beating Stipe Miocic. When I make some sarcastic comment about these kinda scenes, she says, “she’s big” or “she’s well trained”, and “I like that the writer writes strong female characters”. This is the blinding “looks right” facade that Severian wrote about. Nothing can be ridiculous anymore. So it’s best for us guys to just shut up and watch and don’t make a nuisance of ourselves.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous White Male

    “Liberals believe they’re living in the Matrix — and, of course, subscribing to the SJW catechism makes them Neo.”

    But, Neo was a (mostly) White male, was heterosexual, and did toxically masculine things, like fight and shoot assault rifles. Of course, that was before Obama. Given the way the Wachowski’s have gone off the deep end, if they redid The Matrix, Neo would be female, transgender but identifying as lesbian, and would do Sprit Cooking and Yoga to defeat the White patriarchy. You know, the gun thing in movies doesn’t really seem to trigger liberals. At their core, movies are “good” vs. “evil”. When a 110 pound female kicks ass on 250 pound behemoths and then takes out the bad guys with her superior knowledge of weaponry, liberals are just as entranced as a 10 year old White male in the 50’s watching his hero kill the bad guys.

    Reply
    1. Severian Post author

      That’s why I love that “inclusion rider” thing some actors are supposedly putting in their contracts — they won’t appear in a movie unless it’s 50% female minority or something. If you’re so concerned about gun violence, put in a “gun rider!” I won’t appear in any movie where the characters use guns. What could be easier? Put your money where your mouth is, Hollywood, and let the market do the rest….

      ….or, you know, Get Woke, Go Broke. Either way it’s all good.

      Reply
  3. Linda Fox

    I’m a woman who as, in her time as a girl, interested in non-girly things (radio, electronics, camping, etc.). I grew to be a physics/chemistry teacher, ham radio operator, computer nerd – AND – mother, wife, grandmother.

    In short, I’m a real woman, with a quirky mix of tastes and interests. That’s who I know that these “super-woman nerds-who-can-take-down-any-man-no-matter-how-big-or-skilled” is pure B$.

    Come on! I made the mistake of saying, to a group of women who were oohing & ahhing about Wonder Woman, “Come ON! The only way ANY woman beats an equivalently-sized man is if he LETS her!”

    I thought the harpies would pluck my eyes out.

    I upped the ante by saying, “The only reason men do this is to flatter women, and – hopefully – get physically close to them.” They were unable to accept the common sense reality.

    Funnily, the one way the situation COULD become relatively equal – use of guns and other weapons – they’re against.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *