In my previous post I
triumphantly gloated over dispassionately observed the fact that the white leftists who recruited immigrants to displace white Americans, were suffering that fate themselves in the Democratic Party.
On that note, it has been delicious to see the panic in the upper ranks of leftist “thought leaders” at the victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the June 2018 Democrat primary in New York. She shoved out of the House of Representatives a white man, Joe Crowley, who had been in the House since 1999 and was often described as Nancy Pelosi’s presumptive successor as House Dem leader.
This was the funny part: Watching the white left-wing press desperately try to spin Ocasio-Cortez’s victory as due to her far-left politics— she’s a self-described socialist— and not her Hispanic ethnic identification. The New York Times and the rest of that gang have been desperately telling the voters in her district, “You voted for her because of her positions! You definitely didn’t vote for her because of her demographics! You like the socialist thing!” They’re trying the propaganda move of telling her voters why they voted for her and hoping they’ll be stupid enough to buy it.
Not so much, NYT. The minorities who voted for her know damn well why they voted for her. They are not going to listen to anyone— let alone whitey— telling them they actually voted for her for a different reason. (And how many of those voters do you think read the NYT or Washington Post anyway? Fucking LOL, bitchez.)
Minorities’ statements on Elizabeth Warren versus Kamala Harris in my previous post perfectly illustrate my point. Sorry, NYT, they’re not having it. Nice try.
Indeed, anyone who has ever tried this trick on a four-year-old knows it doesn’t work:
“Hey, want some carrots? You love carrots!”
Real-world response: “No I don’t.”
What we have here from white lefties is a desperate about-face, an attempt to stop their own narrative of “It’s minorities’ turn now!” from taking hold in the Dem party. The haute white lefties are terrified in the face of the developments which they themselves deliberately nurtured over the last half century.
Their reaction has been utterly delicious.
You can see the fear in their eyes.
The fuse was long, but not infinitely long, you fuckwits. As you are now forcefully finding out.
This article at Vice gives me a schadenboner the size of Florida. It describes a scene of white leftists being pushed out of the Democratic party by the very minorities they recruited to displace traditional America.
Progressive activists at Netroots Nation in New Orleans this past weekend had a message for the establishment of the Democratic Party: start talking about race or step aside.
Yeah, the left should start talking about race. Because they haven’t been doing racial politics for decades.
The marquee annual conference for the left… made it clear in their program at the outset, that “Democrats must abandon the myth of the white swing voter and invest in the multi-racial, multicultural coalition of voters that make up the majority of our electorate.”
The myth of white voters being important? Seriously? Who is in the White House right now? Also, “the majority of our electorate” is not a “multi-racial coalition.” Whites are still a significant majority of the electorate. Because many minorities are too young to vote, the fraction of the voters who are white is even larger than the fraction of the population at large that is.
Next we’re treated to this narcissistic statement from Kamala Harris:
“We shouldn’t just be thanking women of color for electing progressive leaders, in 2018 we should be electing women of color as those leaders,” [woman of color] Harris said.
“Now, I’m aware that some people will say that what I just said is playing, ‘identity politics.’ I have a problem with that phrase, ‘identity politics.’ When people say that, it’s a pejorative! [If you can imagine!] That phrase is used to divide and used to distract.”
Uh, no; it’s calling you out on using identity politics to divide and distract. Proof that leftists are completely shameless. They divide the country into e.g. blacks and whites, and pit blacks against whites. When we note that they’re doing this, they say we’re being divisive. Absolutely without shame. And pure projection.
By contrast, [Pocahontas] Warren… focused on her signature issue of how crony capitalism undermines working people of all races. “[W]e can’t afford to waste our time arguing about whose fight matters most. It’s one fight. And we have to stand with one another, for one another,” Warren said, which struck some activists as tone-deaf for a conference with “New American Majority” as its dominant theme.
Erm, what? How is it “tone-deaf” to suggest that people should “stand with one another”? If only Warren had a better ear for rhetoric! Then she’d argue that a “New American Majority” should splinter into racial groups in conflict with each other.
Of course, in reality, statements like “we have to stand with one another” perfectly capture the spirit of the phrase “New American Majority,” in terms of what those words actually mean. But then, leftists don’t say what they mean. Leftist plans are evil – e.g., gain power by pitting groups against each other – so leftists cannot afford to state them in plain language.
What “New American Majority” actually signifies in the modern Dem party, of course, is racial politics. And what that means is that everybody divides into racial groups and practices the politics of racial conflict. And Warren basically said, “Let’s not do that.” Hah! Fuck you, whitey!
Next, our brains are assaulted by this outrageous lie:
The election of Donald Trump— who swapped out many of the Republican Party’s past dog whistles for some bullhorns— has thrust race front-and-center in American politics.
Oh, fuck you! Trump put race into our politics?! You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me. Lefties have spent decades saying “White people are evilly oppressing minorities.” And now they dare to say that Trump put race into our politics. Un fucking believable. Who the fuck do they think is going to swallow that whopper?
Actually, they probably don’t expect anyone to buy it.
The reason for this lie is to deaden the pain: the agonizing regret white lefties face, knowing they set in motion the monster that is now devouring them. It’s bad enough that it’s happening at all. But to face that they caused it, well, that would be unbearable.
A normal person would accept the pain of the regret, learn from the disastrous outcome, and resolve never to repeat this kind of mistake. But these are leftists. Of course they’ll create a wall of denial to avoid facing their responsibility. One aspect of that is saying “This is all Trump’s fault!”
People of color are intent on changing [the number of minorities in government] with a surge of candidates in 2018 and driving… events like Netroots to make race a centerpiece of their agenda… this year was heavy on intersectionality and race with panels like “Dear White Progressives” and “Brown is the New White.” Of the 28 main stage keynote speakers and panelists over the three days, 22 were people of color.
Whitey is being squeezed out.
Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan, another possible 2020 candidate at Netroots, told VICE News that “anytime you’re a white guy in America you’re always learning and trying to better understand what people of color are going through and I don’t know if that journey ever ends.” He added, “If I fellate you really well, master, will you promise not to beat me? Or at least to put me last in line for a beating?”
Whoops, the last 30 or so words may have been a typo that I accidentally incorporated into the text.
By the way, is “white guy” Tim Ryan really so clueless as to think he has a chance of being the Democratic candidate in 2020? That’s comedy gold right there.
Some activists, however, still felt frustrated by the party’s colorblind muscle memory. “We are tired of this conversation that’s trying to say ‘It’s class. It’s not race.’ That’s bullshit, we all know it!,”as Yahné Ndgo… put it in a protest speech on the main stage Saturday night arguing that Netroots had not matched its own standard of inclusiveness. “If [a candidate does] not speak in a way that is honoring what is really true racial justice, walk the fuck out.”
The most delicious part of that to me is that a bunch of lefties hosted a conference devoted to “racial inclusiveness” and the white ones were attacked by The Diversity anyway. Any group of humans other than white leftists could have predicted that in CURRENT YEAR.
Some Democrats and left-leaning pundits have been wringing their hands and churning out think pieces about the political risks of the Democrats focusing on so-called “identity politics” … But good politics or bad, activists and elected officials were clear over three days in New Orleans that they believed the debate is already over among the people that matter most, the party’s base voters. 84 percent of black voters identify as Democrats, 63 percent of hispanic [etc.]
White liberals’ fantasy 40 years ago: “We’ll invite minorities into our party, then they’ll get on their knees in supplicating gratitude and kiss our rings.”
Mariana Ruiz… says that the 2016 election has been a wake up call for some white progressives but many are still stuck and people of color are taking note and pushing back. “We aren’t interested in progressive organizations run by and for white people who are not addressing racism internally or moving anti-racist campaigns in support of the leadership and power building of people of color,” she said.
Tell me again, white liberals, about how your plan to aggressively recruit minorities into the Dem party will make them all grateful and appreciative toward you. ‘Cause from where I’m standing, it looks like all it got you is “Step aside, whitey! Faster!”
By the way, note that “pushing back.” Snort. As if. The white lefties invited the “people of color” into the Democratic Party. People of color aren’t “pushing back” against some anti-minority activity by the whites. They’re simply pushing the whites out. Hey white liberals, would this be a good time to remind you that this is what you intended the flood of immigrants to do to the rest of us? No? Whoops, sorry!
Even with Netroots organizers making a conscious efforts to be more inclusive, many people of color said the left has a long way to go.
Ndgo and five other black activists went on stage Saturday night and pre-empted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [because she’s not minority enough, I guess] to call on the convention to do more to… ensure that panels focused on race were given better promotion…
“Hey! They’re not kneeling and kissing our rings! What’s going on? No one could have foreseen this!”
…it was clear that some in the audience were uncomfortable, a fact that delighted one of the protestors Ashton Woods, a lead organizer for Black Lives Matter.
“Your white fragility is showing,” he said.
Cater to minorities, do everything in your power to give them a leg up, and have them insult you as they hip-check you out the door.
White leftists consciously planned to destroy our country’s nature in various ways – to list just some examples, its cultural, philosophical, and political nature – by importing megatons of people who don’t share it. And now that plan has backfired delightfully. I’m having a schadengasm that’s going to register on the Richter scale.
What could have been more foreseeable than this: That black and brown Dem voters want to be ruled by black and brown people, not by white liberals. As I’ve said before, white liberals are some of the stupidest entities on this planet.
Your typical mad scientist in a movie, when he’s creating his Frankensteinian creature, doesn’t don a lab coat and tell the creature for fifty years before he lets it off the operating table, “Now remember: All people wearing lab coats are evil. Okay, let’s free you and put an axe in your hand! What could go wrong!?”
Yet that’s exactly what white liberals did over the last few decades.
Of course, it’s not just stupidity; it’s also the mind-boggling narcissism of white leftists. They’re so in love with themselves that they just can’t imagine that anyone might not be in love with them. White leftists had the following mental image of how minorities would regard them:
Watching these people be bullied out of their own party is delicious.
It’s even more delicious in light of the fact that this is what they planned for minorities to do to white Americans in general. To displace us in our own country.
I now realize there is nothing sweeter than poetic justice.
The deliciousness of this is like that of a peach at the perfect moment of ripeness. When the flesh is soooooo juicy, and at its peak moment of sweetness and tartness, balanced in exquisite combination, and it’s soft yet firm, and it makes your eyelids half close in pleasure. Ahhhh, yeahhhhhhhh.
That’s what it’s like, leftists, watching you be destroyed by your own plan to destroy us.
As I am not the first to observe, one obvious problem with this plan is that by its very nature, it implied that white Dems would be pushed out of the Dem party before whites in general could be pushed out of the country. “By its very nature” because the entire plan was that the Dem party would start catering to minorities, being inviting to minorities, marketing itself as “the pro-diversity party,” etc.
Once you start pimping affirmative action and saying that anyone who doesn’t support affirmative action is racist, then when a black person says to you, “You need more black people in the upper ranks of your party,” you have only one response: “Yes, you’re totally correct; we really do.” And when they inevitably say, “So what specific actions are you taking to bring that about?” you’re forced to actually do it. That is, you’re forced to facilitate and hasten your own displacement from your organization.
I know I hammer on this point a lot, but once again: It’s almost impossible to grok how stupid white leftists are.
I’m terribly confused by the conventional wisdom in Biology and Ecology, that invasive species are a bad thing.
Surely that’s a mistake, right? How could an influx of non-native organisms from one part of the world to another part of the world ever be harmful to those that were already living there?
Buffy re-boot: Black woman says that if you don’t cast a white lead, you’re racist.
Of course if you cast a white lead she’d also say that you’re racist.
Talent of Color Do Not Need White TV Show and Film Hand-Me-Downs, by one Candice Frederick, a black chick who thinks the world should cater more to – surprise! – black chicks.
This includes catering to their whims which directly contradict their other whims. E.g,. “Cast black women! And don’t cast black women!”
La Frederick has this to say about the upcoming re-booting of Buffy the Vampire Slayer with a black lead:
I don’t know why Hollywood continues to ignore us (AKA people of color) whenever we throw free ideas up into the air about great original narratives centering on minority characters… They’d rather take an already existing white film or TV show and remake it with minority actors in roles immortalized by white talent — like they’re planning to do with the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, which will star a black actress in the title role.
This is not okay.
No, your trying to tell someone else what to do with the characters and fictional universe he created is not okay. Jesus, the freaking presumption! Invent your own fucking characters!
Of course, it is 100% certain that if the new Buffy were going to be white, Frederick would also say “This is not okay” about that.
…the new series will be written by showrunner Monica Owusu-Breen… The fact that she is a woman of color also means that she may bring a sensitivity and veracity to the character as well. But this is not about her… the issue lies in the same old tired trend of remaking white shows and films with minority talent…
Grok this, oppressor-man! Even if you cast a black woman in the lead and sign on a black woman as the lead writer, that’s not good enough! You’re still oppressing me! Aagh, I’m in pain from all the oppression!
Do SJWs seriously not understand why white people have started ignoring them in recent years? Do they seriously not understand why the “You’re racist!” thing isn’t working any more? SJWs aren’t exactly Einstein (Warning! White male!), so let me make it very simple for y’all:
If you tell me, “I’m going to call you a racist if you don’t cast minorities, and I’m going to call you a racist if you do cast minorities,” then I might as well just ignore you and do whatever the fuck I feel like. There’s not even in theory any reason I should consider giving in to your demands.
Hence the election of Trump. White people are just tired of this shit.
Ironically, Frederick gets to a reasonable conclusion – stop turning white characters into minority characters – for the wrong reason. Some of us have been saying, for a while, “Write your own fucking characters. Why do you have this burning need to change white men into something else?”
Frederick continues, What’s insulting is the thought that we’re supposed to be happy with whatever representation we get…
The point is, you’re supposed to be happy with SOMETHING, you fucking Stalinists. DECIDE what it is, SAY what it is, and STOP MOVING THE FUCKING GOALPOSTS.
There are plenty of white people who would go along with that. Hell, they DID go along with it, for all too long, hoping that if they gave in to the latest insane bullshit, that would be the end of the insane bullshit. Of course, that appeasement just encouraged the race-baiters to demand yet more insane bullshit.
You’ve told them, “We’re going to attack you whether you go along with our insane demands or not.”
Now scratch your head and wonder why they’re not going along any more.
Deconstruction (although past its sell-by date these days) in its most radical version asserts that any speaking or writing can mean anything, and all interpretations are equally valid. All communication is self-undercutting. Feminists— a group which has significant overlap with deconstructionists— also maintain that “No” Means “No.”
Which is it?
Rapists should love deconstruction. “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as sarcasm, which is just as good as the interpretation that she meant it literally.” Or, “Sure, her lips were saying ‘No,’ but that tight, short little skirt was saying ‘Yes’.” Or, “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as ‘Bend me over and slam me hard, stud!’” Or, for a serious deconstructionist: “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as critical commentary on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica.”
Deconstruction and No Means No are mutually exclusive.
There’s something else funny about the whole “No Means No” thing: If a man were not inclined to accept No as meaning No, why would he accept the statement “No Means No” as meaning “No Means No”? Doesn’t that statement itself also require a meta-statement to reveal its meaning? Maybe feminists should put up posters saying
“No Means No” means “No Means No.”
Hmm, just to be safe, better do posters saying,
“No Means No means No Means No”
“No Means No means No Means No”
Actually, that’s probably not clear enough. What is actually needed, just to be sure the point is getting across, is… (etc.)
Women interpret male niceness as proof that the male is not good enough for them. As The Chateau said – commenting on a study that revealed exactly this way of thinking by women – if you’re nice to her she takes that as evidence that she’s too hot for you.
Thus it seems reasonable on the surface to think: Women are the choosers, so you’d better be nice to them. However, the reality is: Women are the choosers, so you’d better be mean to them.
You haven’t understood female evolutionary psychology until that last sentence makes sense to you. If it doesn’t make sense to you – if you think that evolution implies that women should make choices that make them happy – remind yourself of this:
Evolution doesn’t select for happiness. It selects for reproductive success.
So much male confusion about women results from a failure to understand this point. Quite a lot of female sexual behavior is driven by this fact. Women are compelled by their genes to have sex with men who won’t make them happy. An indifferent jerk who places a low value on a female makes her experience a fierce desire to have sex with him.
Presumably the evolutionary driver of this is as follows: Alpha males are the desirable mates (because they can protect and provide for a woman and her offspring). And for that reason, alphas receive sexual attention from many women. This surplus of sexual attention makes an alpha indifferent to any particular woman. Thus women evolved the “short-cut” algorithm of concluding that a man who is indifferent to them is alpha. I don’t mean that women think this through explicitly and “draw conclusions.” Hardly! Rather, it’s an emotional response to indifferent men that evolution has hard-wired into the female brain.
Additionally, women seem to be hard-wired to put out for men who don’t give them much affection in the hopes that the sex will earn the man’s affection. Needless to say, this doesn’t work, but evolution has wired women to think that it will work. It’s one of the motivations women have to mate with alphas. By the way, ladies, this makes no sense, as should be obvious. If I treat you like dirt and you give me sex, do I have any incentive to change how I treat you? Try to answer by thinking with your brain, not your vagina. Your vagina is genetically programmed to come up with the wrong answer. Anyway, a woman is wired to think that if she just puts out for the guy who treats her with contempt, he’ll stop treating her with contempt. (Yeah! And if you give someone a thousand bucks every time he throws a brick through your window, he’ll stop throwing bricks through your window!)
It is also true that in some ways, being with an alpha man makes a woman happy. Many (all?) women are suckers for emotional roller coasters. Some aspects of being with an indifferent man make women happy and some make them unhappy. Evolution doesn’t care about the “principled consistency” of all this; evolution is the ultimate ideology-free pragmatist. Seeing her boyfriend flirt with the waitress and the waitress flirt back may make a woman unhappy and wet at the same time: Unhappy because it’s a threat to the relationship. Wet because (1) it’s social proof of her man’s desirability, and (2) if she has sex with him ASAP she can yank his attention away from the relationship threat.
Once in a public library I walked past a group of around eighth-grade girls, one of them crying. And it wasn’t gentle weeping.
“Why is he so mean to me?” she wailed.
“Did you break up with him?” one of her friends asked.
“No,” she said through her tears.
God, it is funny, isn’t it? If you look at it from a certain point of view? I remember the incident because it was soon after I started to acquire a clue about female behavior. A couple of years before I would have thought, “Huh. If he’s mean to her I wonder why she doesn’t just break up with him.” This was one of the first times, maybe the first time, that I thought, “Yup. Standard female behavior. She didn’t break up with him because he’s mean to her.”
Anyway, the point is that women aren’t wired to do what will make them happy, but what will optimize the propagation of their genes. These can be the same thing or they can be totally different things; evolution doesn’t give a fuck. It will wire women to be made happy by reproductively optimal behavior if that’s the easiest hack, and will wire them to be deluded about what will make them happy if that’s the easiest.
This is also true for men, at least in principle, but the contradictions don’t seem as important for male sexual behavior as for female sexual behavior.
Jim in the comments at his blog:
(Backup link for WordPress’s magic Disappearing Links feature: https://blog.jim.com/culture/women-like-sexual-coercion/ )
Female behavior in sexual matters is not well described by utility maximization. They react to stimuli, rather than optimizing long term utility. They want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want.
Male sexual behavior is pretty much utility maximizing – or, which comes to much the same thing, pussy maximizing. Female behavior not so much. What women “like” is not consistent with behavior, nor predictive of behavior.