Hypocrisy So Dense that Not Even Light Can Escape its Surface

“Why does Tierra del Fuego have a Spanish name? I dunno, I’d rather not think about it!”

Someone writes a pair of poems: a poem in Spanish and a sneaky mis-translation of it into English.

The mistranslation is not secret; it’s the point. In the original Spanish poem, a mermaid comes onto land and is maimed by a man; in the English translation she is grateful for the maiming, seeing it as an operation performed by a benevolent surgeon. Deliberate mis-translation is an interesting idea for a ficcion a la Borges and is by itself not a problem.

The problem is a person in the comments, a self-identified “Latina woman,” who goes off on a mind-blowingly hypocritical leftist appreciation of this work, praising it for calling out the translation into English as the language of the oppressor, and an act of “colonization” and “violence.” REALLY!? Are you fucking kidding me? You’re actually saying that Spanish is the language of VICTIMS of colonialism? What the fuck? You are aware that Spain is a country in EUROPE, right? Hey, since you’re so interested in calling out colonialism, a question for you:

Why is Spanish the language of the vast majority of the Americas?

Why do they speak Spanish in Mexico?
Why do they speak Spanish in Argentina?
Why do they speak Spanish in Bolivia?
Why do they speak Spanish in Chile?
Why do they speak Spanish in Colombia?
Why do they speak Spanish in Ecuador?
Why do they speak Spanish in Paraguay?
Why do they speak Spanish in Peru?
Why do they speak Spanish in Uruguay?
Why do they speak Spanish in Venezuela?
Why do they speak Spanish in Panama?
Why do they speak Spanish in Honduras?
Why do they speak Spanish in Costa Rica?
Why do they speak Spanish in Guatemala?
Why do they speak Spanish in El Salvador?
Why do they speak Spanish in Nicaragua?

These are all countries in the Americas in which Spanish is the official language (excepting Mexico, where Spanish is the majority language, though apparently it’s not official). I checked.

The answer to all these questions, of course, is that the Spanish conquistadors went on a raging frenzy of genocide, slaughtering their way from the middle of North America to Tierra del Fuego, and turning an entire hemisphere into an abattoir.

The population of South America is 385.7 million, the population of Central America is 42.7 million, and the population of Mexico (which is in North America) is 119.5 million. That gives us a total of population of more than 547 million in Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas.

The two majority-English language countries in the Americas are the US and Canada, with a combined population of 360.2 million. This is rough-cut, but the difference is almost 200 million, so a more precise comparison is not going to change the elemental fact:


This is simply a fact. There’s no way to even argue it.

Yet all the bloodletting by the conquistadores, all the slaughter by Spain in its colonization of vast swathes of the Americas: South America, Central America, and North America – all that murder gets pushed down the memory hole by this hypocritical attack-bot and a billion other vile assholes just like her.

She’s the descendant of genocidal Spanish colonizers (self-identified “Latina”)… and she dares to complain that English is the language of colonial oppression of her country. Un Fucking Believable.

This is the thing about the Left: No matter how brazenly hypocritical they are, they can always get worse. Just when you think they’ve explored the very last splinter of the absolute bottom of the barrel of hypocrisy, you get a wail of self-pity from the descendants of genocidal invaders, whining on behalf of the invaders’ descendants because “translation into English can be an act of colonization and violence.”

These people defy belief.

And not only does she take this sly, affecting, and interesting work of art and turn it political, she turns it political in the most stupid, tunnel-visioned way imaginable. Aside from the sheer stupidity of translation being an act of “violence”: Really? Translating into other languages can’t be “an act of colonization and violence”? Only English? Ugh.

You see why we can’t reason with the Left. There’s nothing to reason with; no part of them is even interested in getting at the truth. They’re all just violence, aggression, lying propaganda, projection, and blood libels that blame others for their own sins.

This is a good example of that fact that the alleged badness of the US is not something that has anything to do with actual facts of the US or English. In these psychopaths’ minds, it is OK for Spain to conquer, rape, and murder its way across several continents in a raging apocalyptic slaughterfest. But not okay for the English to do so across part of one continent. Oh. Why? Oh, you know, just because. I’m Spanish-speaking, so I’m axiomatically oppressed and virtuous. Symmetrically, all English-speaking people are axiomatically oppressors, just because. Just remember: Spanish speakers are axiomatically virtuous, even when they’re genocidally slaughtering their way across a couple of continents.

An extended quote from this psychopathic hypocrite, interpolations by yours truly:

The reason this mistranslation is so brilliant is that it takes a story about a mermaid trying to forgive a man who’s committed senseless violence against her, and turns it into a story about a man who uplifts a woman to a better life out of the kindness of his heart. And the thing is, that’s exactly what happens to so many stories from colonized cultures, LIKE THOSE GENOCIDALLY COLONIZED BY SPAIN, when they’re adapted by the oppressor, I.E. THE MASSACRING CONQUISTADORES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS. Translation into SPANISH, and further the cultural language of the oppressor, THAT IS, SPANISH, can be an act of violence and erasure rather than one of respect.

This is why I have worked so hard to translate poetry from Spanish to English that has previously only been translated by white Americans who learned Spanish in college. I can bring something to the translation that they can’t: A DEGREE OF HYPOCRISY HERETOFORE ACHIEVED ONLY BY SATAN.

Suttee, Chesterton’s Fence, and Holiness Spirals

In the comments at Jim’s blog, https://blog.jim.com/war/when-the-rot-set-in-2/ there was some back and forth about suttee/sati – the old Indian practice of a widow being expected to kill herself by throwing herself on her husband’s funeral pyre.


Someone claimed that sati was a reaction to a raft of Indian wives poisoning their husbands, and so sati came about as a deterrent to this, i.e., a deterrent to murder. (I have no idea how credible this assertion is.) Given that, the question was whether the British in India were right to abolish sati, as they apparently did in the 1800s.

A bunch of people weighed in, so overall it went something like this:

Sati is evil and the Brits were right to abolish it.

No, because it came about as a deterrent to murder.

It would be better to just investigate and punish murderers, not throw every widow onto a fire.

The detective tech of the time didn’t exactly have fingerprinting, etc. Also, the widows weren’t thrown onto the fire; they were merely expected to do so themselves. [Or what? They’d “live in dishonor” or something? What’s the semantic content of “expected to” here? – N.]

Also, Chesterton’s Fence says we shouldn’t mess with customs like this that we don’t understand.

That’s not all, but let me stop here. Chesterton’s Fence is an important concept; we can’t abuse it to justify literally anything. Indeed Chesterton himself didn’t advocate that:

The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it [a fence across a road] and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’

Note that in some circumstances “I may allow you to destroy it.” That’s important. Chesterton’s Fence was not put forth even by Chesterton as an argument that no one should change anything ever.

So how can we tell the difference?

For one thing, we could just ask around. Why not just ask Indians why the practice of sati exists? If they say “Because of a wave of husband poisonings,” that’s a start.

And if a widow was not expected to kill herself when the husband died of non-poisoning causes – e.g., everyone saw him absent-mindedly walk off a cliff – that buttresses the “deter poisonings” argument.

And are there alternatives? Someone conjectured that women were killing their husbands because they wanted to “trade up” to a new husband. If that’s the case, then forbidding widows from re-marrying would be an effective deterrent. You don’t have to immolate them!

And what about experimentation? Forbid sati. If there’s a sudden wave of husband poisonings, then re-establish it.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY: If a practice is universal or at least common in history, the Chesterton’s Fence argument for it is much stronger. Most human societies have managed to survive just fine without tossing widows onto bonfires, so the Chesterton’s Fence argument for sati is vastly weakened.

In contrast, “patriarchy” passes the universality test: Every society in the history of the world kept women out of important social decision-making until around 1900. That is an overpowering argument that when women make such decisions, things go badly wrong. In the U.S., for example, it is women who vote overwhelmingly for the political party that is importing as many hostile invaders as possible. (And many of those invaders are from extremely anti-feminist societies and show no inclination whatsoever to assimilate, which conveys some of the self-destructive nature of feminism, and of societies in which feminist notions are allowed to become important.) The society that allows this is either going to stop allowing it or stop existing. We are seeing this in real time every time we see video footage of invaders crashing our border. So there is an unassailable Darwinian argument here.

In contrast, not every society sprayed lighter fluid on bereaved wives and tossed them onto a pyre.

Of course there are several good reasons not to intervene in other cultures. Like: We have 6,000 problems of our own to solve before we even contemplate running around trying to solve everyone else’s problems! But that’s a different argument.

Why does the title of this post mention holiness spirals? Because that’s another reason that people do seemingly insane things: Because those things are in fact insane, and those who do them are caught up in a holiness spiral.

I recently saw a photo on the Net of a white woman holding up a placard that said “Kill all white people.” This is not because this is a sane idea. It’s because she’s a mentally vulnerable person in a society undergoing a severe holiness spiral. One can imagine the same thing with women expected to immolate themselves. Indeed, when it came to the horror of Moloch, the baby-eating god of the Canaanites, that’s clearly what was going on. Or do you really think that most parents wanted to sacrifice their first-born children? Bitch, please. Sometimes people really are caught up, against their will, in collective-action madness.

So: Chesterton’s Fence is a thing, but so are holiness spirals. And so is the Emperor’s new clothes. (Everyone wants to say, “Let’s not kill our kids!” but everyone is afraid that something horrible will happen to them if they say it… because everyone else wants to demonstrate their loyalty to Moloch (ugh) by attacking those who question Moloch… And they want to do this not because they really are loyal to Moloch, but because they fear they’ll be attacked if they don’t demonstrate loyalty…)

We should not be messing around in other cultures, but a much better rationale for that position is that we have problems – emergencies – of our own to deal with. Maybe someday all our problems will be solved (snort). But in the current age we don’t have the time or resources for extra-curriculars.