“No room for blue pilled men, which is to say, they are free to join in on other topics, but if they start spouting off bs about women, they are put in place. See Neurotoxin.”
Jesus, you’re still butt-hurt about losing a debate that ended more than a week ago. If it bugs you that much, don’t engage in debates.
Most readers of this blog won’t know or care what this is about; it’s in reference to some horseshit from another forum where my posts are likely to be deleted. Just getting some stuff on the record. I regret that this clutter is necessary. Regular posts resume next time.
You (you who know who you are): “I demand examples!”
Me: “OK, here.”
You: “That’s not an example of what I’m talking about! Provide examples!”
Me: “Yes, it is. Also here’s another example.”
You: “No it’s not! Also, where’s your argument? I demand that you make an argument.”
Me: “The argument is (etc.)”
You: “Hey, stop rambling for screen after screen.”
Cute. This kind of behavior is characteristic of malignant narcissists. Caught.
Funny, I thought I’d feel regret exiting that forum. Instead I feel this flood of relief.
C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, notes that many human endeavors start out as a kind of exuberant 50-yard dash, but soon settle into a marathon. There’s a lesson here for supporters of President Trump, when they freak out too readily that he’s cucking out.
We are now past the “Oh thank God!” euphoria and relief of his 2016 victory, which saved us from a civil war with Hillary Clinton as President. We are now in the “settling into the hard work” phase. It’s still joy, but it’s marathon mode.
For those of you who haven’t read The Screwtape Letters, this wonderful little book consists of letters from an older demon, Screwtape, to a younger demon, Wormwood. The subject is tempting humans.
Screwtape mentions the distinction between early euphoric sprint and later steady marathon in the context of Wormwood’s target becoming a newly-enthusiastic Christian. From the demons’ point of view this is a disaster, but Screwtape reassures Wormwood that all is not lost: the renewed enthusiasm of Wormwood’s target (“patient”) won’t last forever; he eventually will have to make the transition to a religious commitment that is calmer and more enduring. If the target had thought that his new euphoria would last forever, that necessary transition affords opportunities for the demons:
Work hard, then on the disappointment or anticlimax which is certainly coming to the patient… It occurs when the boy who has been enchanted in the nursery by Stories from the Odyssey buckles down to really learning Greek. It occurs when lovers have got married and begin the real task of living together. In every department of life it marks the transition from dreaming aspiration to laborious doing.
We are in power now in the White House (and increasingly in the judiciary as Trump gets his nominees confirmed). That is wonderful! But to exploit this to its fullest potential we can’t let ourselves get too carried away with emotion. We have to create long steady progress.
And it may help to remind oneself occasionally, “Thank God, Hillary Clinton will never be President!” Yes, that was a couple of years ago and we must press on, but it’s a real morale booster to remind oneself that she’d still be President right now if, God forbid, she had gotten into the White House. The fact that she is not in the White House is a continual victory.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks Trump is actually a secret agent for the other side (WTF?) need only remind himself of our enemies’ attitude toward him: Hate, terror, and rage, and an unceasing attempt to remove him from office, long after it ceased to be merely stupid and descended into the realm of the clownish. All the right people hate him.
Yeah, yeah, Trump’s not perfect, but nobody is. And he’s pretty close to perfect for the war that we’re in now. He actually hits back against our enemies! This still freaks them out, they’re so used to that never happening! We got immensely lucky that he stood as a candidate in 2016. He’s pretty much our best-case scenario. What else do you want!?
And he has to work against the preponderance of the nation’s government at the federal, state, and local levels. Were you expecting total victory 12 seconds after he took the oath of office?
Trump should not be immune from criticism— he needs to hear from us when he strays off, to put him back on track— but before criticizing him too readily, remember this:
People out of power can afford to be purists. People in power have to deal with the realities of it.
In The Painted Word Tom Wolfe skewers art theory as it developed during the mid-twentieth century. A notable aspect of the affair was a holiness spiral. Once Theory became hip, if you were an artist or critic your best career move was to hop on the bandwagon. The whole episode is quite amusing – man, the pretentiousness! – and provides good examples of how people behave when they’re caught up in a holiness spiral, optimal strategy for rebels who want to attack it from within, etc.
Wolfe starts his account in the early 20th century, when realism in painting started to fall out of favor (some quotes edited for brevity):
The general theory went as follows: As Cubists and other early Modernists had correctly realized, a painting was not a window through which one could peer into the distance. The three-dimensional effects were sheer illusion (et ergo ersatz). A painting was a flat surface with paint on it.
Since “a painting was a flat surface with paint on it,” it should present itself as such. As the painter Georges Braque said, “The aim is not to reconstitute an anecdotal fact but to constitute a pictorial fact.”
Notice the bizarre notion that realistic effects in painting are somehow deceptive or dishonest. What, does anyone actually think, when viewing a painting, that they’re looking out a window? Does the painter intend to fool them? Is written fiction somehow dishonest because it depicts events that never happened?
The whole thing was stupid. But it became an intellectual craze in the haute art world in the early 20th century, becoming mandatory by the 1940s if you aspired to be a Name in that world. No illusory 3D effects! Flatness was In, baby; Flatness was It.
This business of flatness became quite an issue; an obsession. The question of what an artist or could not do without violating the principle of Flatness—“the integrity of the picture plane,” as it became known—inspired such subtle distinctions, such brilliant if ever-decreasing tighter-turning spirals of logic, that it compares admirably with the most famous of all questions of the Scholastics: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
What we have here, folks, is the early stage of a holiness spiral. (Later, inevitably, black knighting arose in response, as we’ll see.) The new Flatness theory got serious traction when art critic Clement Greenberg used painter Jackson Pollock to push it:
[Greenberg] used Pollock’s certified success to put over Flatness as the theory—the theoretical breakthrough of Einstein-scale authority—of the entire new wave. “Pollock’s strength,” he would say, “lies in the emphatic surfaces of his pictures… in all that thick, fuliginous flatness… [I had to look up fuliginous. It means dark or sooty, in case you were wondering.] “It is the tension inherent in the constructed, re-created flatness of the surface,” Greenberg would say, “that produces the strength of his art… his concentration on surface texture and tactile qualities.”
One notices certain problems with this, like
It makes no fucking sense,
How can flatness be “thick” or “tactile”?
You slope-browed vulgarian! How dare you question an Art Theorist when he’s working up a good head of steam! You probably went to public school, you slack-jawed commoner!
[A] Washington, D.C. artist named Morris Louis came to New York in 1953 to try to get a line on what was going on in this new wave, and he had some long talks with Greenberg. He went back to Washington and began thinking. Flatness, the man had said. Louis saw the future with great clarity. The very use of thick oil paint itself had been a crime against flatness, a violation of the integrity of the picture plane, all these years. Even in the hands of Picasso, ordinary paint was likely to build up as much as a millimeter or two above mean canvas level! And as for the new Picasso—i.e., Pollock—my God, get out a ruler!
Louis took no chances violating Holy Writ:
So Louis used unprimed canvas and thinned out his paint until it soaked right into the canvas when he brushed it on. He could put a painting on the floor and lie on top of the canvas and cock his eye sideways… He had done it! Nothing existed above or below the picture plane. Did I hear the word flat? Well, try to out-flat this!
A man from Mars or Chesterton, Pa., incidentally, would have looked at a Morris Louis painting and seen rows of rather watery-looking stripes. (The book’s photo of a Louis painting confirms this.)
Now the spiral has acquired serious momentum. A painter named Barnett Newman
spent the last twenty-two years of his life studying the problems (if any) of dealing with big areas of color divided by stripes… on a flat picture plane.
But the question that makes us ache with its urgency is… have we gotten as flat as we can get? Might there be frontiers of flatness we haven’t yet explored?
Why, yes. And this lets the new generation of younger artists leapfrog over the older guys. All without ever getting heterodox, mind you. This takes us to the 1950s and Pop Art icon Jasper Johns:
The new theory went as follows. Johns had chosen real subjects such as flags and numbers and letters and targets that were flat by their very nature. They were born to be flat, you might say. Thereby Johns was achieving an amazing thing. He was bringing real subjects into Modern painting but in a way that neither violated the law of Flatness nor introduced “literary” content. On the contrary: he was converting pieces of everyday communication—flags and numbers—into art objects… and thereby de-literalizing them! “An amazing result,” said [art critic Leo] Steinberg.
(I love the word “result” in this context, as if Johns had proven a new mathematical theorem.)
And those old guys like painter de Kooning and critic Greenberg: What a bunch of frauds! They’d been violating the sacred principles of Flatness all along, the hypocrites! You see, Greenberg had righteously called out the Old Masters for creating “an illusion of space into which one could imagine oneself walking.” And Flatness got rid of that benighted practice. But…
Just a minute, said Steinberg. That’s all well and good, but you’re talking about a “pre-industrial standard of locomotion,” i.e., walking. Perhaps you can’t walk into an Abstract Expressionist painting—but you can fly through! Just look at a de Kooning or a Rothko… Look at that “airy” quality, those “areas floating in space”… all that “illusionistic space.” It was aerial “double dealing,” and it did “clearly deny and dissemble the picture’s material surface”—and nobody had ever blown the whistle on them!
Well, it was all now blown for Abstract Expressionism. Steinberg, with an assist from [other critics and painters], removed the cataracts from everybody’s eyes overnight.
The Black Knights had arrived. It is like a man posing as a male-to-female transvestite online and calling lesbian feminists “hate-filled bigots” for refusing to date transvestites, i.e., men. The holiness spiral winds up in a place the feminists had not anticipated, but they’re at a loss how to counter-attack and still remain within left-wing orthodoxy. Johns and Steinberg did something analogous to the Pollock-Greenberg crowd. As Wolfe notes,
Steinberg could attack Abstract Expressionism precisely because he was saying, “I’ve found something newer and better.” But one will note that at no time does he attack the premises of Late-Twentieth-Century Art Theory as developed by Greenberg. He accepts every fundamental Greenberg has put forth. Realism and three-dimensional illusion are still forbidden. Flatness is still God. Steinberg simply adds, “I’ve found a new world that’s flatter.”
In other words, “You’re not radical enough. I’m holier.” Greenberg, the original Flatness guy, made a blunder here: He tried to counterattack the New Theory head on. You fool, Greenberg! You can be as heterodox as you like, but you have to say that you’re not being heterodox. It’s as if he tried to take on the transvestites with the equivalent of a feminist saying, “But you’re a man and I don’t want to date men!” Rookie mistake, Greenberg! What he should have done is said something analogous to, “Male-to-female transvestites are appropriating women’s gender identity in an act of gender silencing, violence, and erasure.” This is incredibly stupid and obviously non-sensical, so it’s impeccably left-wing-orthodox.
Back to Art World: Soon after the New Flatness took over, art in the style of comic books became a prominent feature of Pop Art. You know, those 8-foot-by-8-foot works that depict, e.g., a woman in a couple of old-fashioned comic book panels holding a phone and thinking “Who’s the other woman on the line that Joe’s talking to? Is he… cheating on me!?!?!
The idea is to put quote marks around this art form, as it were, so it is turned into an ironic commentary on itself or whatever. “Don’t worry!” art critics assured the aficionados: “It’s okay; it’s not a comic book page telling a little story. It’s commentary on comic books!” One critic said, reassuringly: “Pop Art is neither abstract nor realistic… it is, essentially, an art about signs and sign systems.” Note the “art as commentary on art” aspect. That comes back in a big way later.
In the meantime, as Wolfe sums it up: “You are hereby licensed to go ahead and like these pictures. We’ve drained all the realism out.”
By the way, this is still hip among a certain crowd, at least the last time I checked several years ago. I knew someone with a PhD in literary criticism from an English department that has hard core post-modernist leanings. She had one of these large comic thingies on her wall. It’s kinda cute, in a way. But that’s the great thing about Black Knighting: You kill off the enemy with his own weapons.
Theory was still accelerating.
Of course, Greenberg had started it all with his demands for purity, for flatness (ever more Flatness!), for the obliteration of distinctions such as foreground and background, figure and field. Now, in the 1960s, Greenberg made a comeback.
He had learned a thing or two in the meantime about strategy… All along, he said, there had been something old fashioned about Abstract Expressionism: its brushstrokes. The characteristic Abstract Expressionist brushstroke was something very obvious, very expressive… very painterly, like what you find in Baroque art.
Greenberg was still unbending in his opposition to Pop, but now he knew better than to just denounce it. Now he added the obligatory phrase: “—and I can show you something newer and better, way out here.”
Reductionism was the word of the day.
How far we’ve come! How religiously we’ve cut away the fat! We got rid of nineteenth-century storybook realism. Then we got rid of representational objects. Then we got rid of the third dimension altogether and got really flat. Then we got rid of airiness, brushstrokes, and most of the paint…
…because Minimalism was getting rolling.
Bourgeois connotations, they argued, still hung on to modern art. What about all those nice “lovely” colors? They invited as many sentimental associations as painterly brushstrokes had. So Minimalists began using colors like Subway I-Beam green and Restaurant Exhaust-Fan Duct Lint gray that nobody could accuse of sentimentality. And how about all those fuzzy, swampy, misty edges that Color Fielders went for? They invited you to linger over a painting for all its emotional “evocations.” Henceforth a paint should be applied only in hard linear geometries, and you should get the whole painting at once, “fast.”
Faster and faster art theory flew now, in ever-tighter and more dazzling turns. [Clement] Greenberg [the guy who had started the whole thing] accused the Minimalists of living only for “the far-out as an end in itself.” A little late to be saying that, Clement! Rosenberg tried to stop them by saying they really weren’t far-out at all—they were a fake avant-garde.
LOL, no dice, Mr. Trotsky, I mean Rosenberg. The Revolution Eats Its Own!
Theory spun on and chewed up the two old boys like breadsticks, like the Revolution devouring Robespierre and Danton.
And as art got rid of more and more in an inexorable turn to reduction, to eliminating elements of art, and as theory grew larger and more powerful, more influential, more prominent, the minnow of theory finally swallowed the whale of what the theory was supposedly about:
So it was that in April of 1970 an artist named Lawrence Wiener typed up a work of art that appeared in Arts Magazine—as a work of art— with no visual experience before or after:
1. The artist may construct the piece 2. The piece may be fabricated 3. The piece need not be built Each being equal and consistent with the intent of the artist the decision as to condition rests with the receiver upon the occasion of receivership.
Wow. It’s not clear what the hell this is supposed to mean, but it is clear that it’s intended as a statement of Art Theory. But note as Wolfe says that this was published as a work of art. That is, the distinction between art and art theory had been eliminated.
In that moment, Art made its final flight, climbed higher and higher in an ever-decreasing tighter-turning spiral until it disappeared up its own fundamental aperture… and came out the other side as Art Theory! Words on a page, flat, flatter, Flattest, a vision ineffable, as ineffable as the Angels and Universal Souls.
The holiness spiral had finally gone as far as it could. Game theoretically, it couldn’t avoid it. Let’s extract some lessons from this:
1. Once the spiral gets rolling, there is no incentive to stop and every incentive to continue.
2. You can’t, from within the relevant community, fight it by denying its terms. That can be done, but it requires an all-out war. If you want to take down the reigning champion without a scorched-earth war, you have to attack it on its own terms; you must couch your attack in language which appears orthodox. From within the art world, they couldn’t attack Abstract Expressionism by saying, “The old art was better and Abstract Expressionism was a mistake!” But schools like Pop Art successfully attacked it by saying, “Abstract Expressionism doesn’t go far enough; it’s not holy enough! I have something newer and holier over here!”
3. That last part, “I have something newer and holier!” is important. You can’t just accuse the current reigning champion of not being holy enough. You have to offer an alternative. (Alinsky: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”)
4. The Revolution Eats Its Own.
5. The Spiral will continue until it has gotten as extreme as it actually can get.
Implication of all this: If you’re in a holiness spiral, assume that it will continue until it gets to Terminal Holiness Spiral. Don’t think that might happen. Plan for it to happen.
Watch it up to the 4:00 mark. (After that it’s just a love song/dance, which is fine as far as it goes.)
Whoever wrote this scene knows the concept of amused mastery cold. And the importance of passing shit tests. And negs/being unimpressed, since his changing her hair etc. says, “You need to look more feminine before I’m willing to sex you.” And understands that everyone is happier when natural male-female sexual polarity is respected and honored. Very nicely done; absolutely beautiful.
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 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:
SPANISH IS FAR AND AWAY THE LANGUAGE OF COLONIALISM IN THE AMERICAS.
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.
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.
Just weighing in here for a second while this is still fresh. This is just a small example of liberal media BS, but so easily exposed.
Via Vox Day I found this Hollywood Reporter piece. It quotes Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, as saying he doubts the company would continue to shoot movies in Georgia if the restrictions on abortion in the state are implemented, because too many Disney employees would be opposed to it.
(By the way, this is absolutely remarkable public image management for Disney, of all corporations: As a pro-abortion company. Seriously, Iger?)
Hollywood Reporter then says:
“Disney’s prospective withdrawal from production in Georgia would be a huge blow to the state. Recently, Disney’s Marvel Studios filmed portions of both Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame in Georgia.”
How does this belch of threat display stand up against actual fact?
Short version: I checked, and the entire budget of End Game – making no attempt to sound out how much of it actually ended up in Georgia’s economy – amounts to a tiny fraction of one percentage point of Georgia’s economy. How tiny? Only 6/100 of one percent!
In technical terms, quantities this small are called: LOL.
Not only is it not going to be “a huge blow to the state,” it wouldn’t even be noticed.
Details with data sources below.
What the left is trying to do on this matter – not just in this little article – is simply threaten, to puff themselves up like an animal confronted by a predator and hope that the bluff works.
Another way of putting it: This is trying to apply Alinsky’s dictum “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” So again: Bluff.
3. Per Google, End Game’s total budget was $356 million. Obviously they didn’t spend all of that in Georgia, but let’s suppose they did, just for fun. Then the fraction of Georgia’s GDP that amounted to was
356 mill/587 bill = 0.0006.
That is, about 6 hundredths of one percentage point.
And that’s if the movie’s entire budget was spent in Georgia! How much was actually spent there? Who knows, but a big chunk of the budget is certainly salaries for Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr., etc. One piece of scuttlebutt puts Downey’s earnings for the film at $75 million. Those paychecks go to the actors, not the citizens of the state.
Does the “reporter” who wrote this know that it’s false? Well, either he does, and wrote it anyway, or at the very least he wrote it with an absolute lack of concern for whether it’s true or false. If he cared he would have checked first.
It really is remarkable how shameless and unhesitant liberal reporters are to just make stuff up with no concern for its truth.
So often their bluffs rely on most readers being to busy or too trusting or whatever to check them. But sometimes it only takes a little checking to kick the crap out of their sad little narratives.