The Role of Ideology in Leftist Violence

At some of us had a debate about the role of sincerely held beliefs among leftists, particularly in the left’s internal power struggles. At first the debate shed rather more heat than light, but it was ultimately worth it because it culminated in the following very good comment from the blog proprietor.

While one should not treat the claim that the owner of an applecart is oppressing the proletariat, causing global warming, or whatever, as sincerely held, nor suppose they give a tinker’s dam about the sufferings of the proletariat or the temperature of the earth, one does need to take seriously what their story implies about what apple cart they are coordinating to knock over, and what mob they are assembling to knock it over.

These are not individual conflicts, Stalin versus Trotsky, but struggles over Schelling points for group coordination.

Trotsky was a purer communist than Stalin, because his communism was unconstrained by practical economic considerations. Since there had been repeated cycles of the ever lefter grabbing power from the insufficiently left, his purity was likely to result in him grabbing power from Stalin, which was undoubtedly the real motive behind such lunatic purity and the real reason for Stalin crushing the Trots – but such purity was likely to result in someone grabbing power from Stalin, regardless of what happened to Trotsky. The ideas, rather than Trotsky himself, were the threat.

Ideas matter. And they still matter even when they should not be taken seriously. They may not be the real motives for the left’s actions, but they are the real mechanism for left coordination to take action.

The details of Trotsky’s superior purity are irrelevant, uninteresting, hypocritical, and not sincerely held. And in this sense, it would be pointless to pay attention to the ideological argument. But the argument was real enough regardless. Stalin was impure, because concerned with practical consequences. His reasoning that Trotskyism was “objectively fascist” was that it was likely to have stupid and disastrous practical consequences that the fascists would be happy about.

Consider the question, “Are internal power struggles among leftists about ideology?” As with Hofstadter’s Godel, Escher, Bach, the correct answer to this question is not “Yes” or “No” but “Mu.”

The left’s attitude toward ideas is on the whole one of brutally amoral cynicism. Yet they can take conflicts over ideological questions very seriously indeed. This is because the stakes are often life and death. If you don’t already know, look up what happened to Robespierre and Trotsky. (I could tell you, but it will have more impact if you discover it yourself.) It is not only that the “ideas” are used as weapons to justify taking power, killing people, etc. They are also used as coordination mechanisms to settle on just who is going to be attacked in the first place.

The particular ideology the left coordinates on determines who is going to be attacked, and at the same time, why they are going to be attacked. In fact the Why determines the Who: If “racism” is the big problem, then it’s whites who are to be attacked; if pollution is the problem, then corporations. If “left deviationists,” then Trotsky. Etc.

The ideologies are both the terrain on which the ideological battle is fought and the weapons with which it is fought. They are at the same time the prize for which such battles are fought, since the winner of the ideological battle has won the power to coordinate and direct violence.

So again: “Are internal power struggles among leftists about ideology?” From a behavioral empiricist point of view, all that is going on is that evil people are engaging in gang war, both against targets in the broader society and against each other. But because coordination is all-important in war, an immense amount of energy is devoted to proving that one’s own gang has the correct ideology and opposing gangs are incorrect. It must be so, because the stakes are life and death.

Thus the apparent paradox:

Leftists, who are utterly cynical in terms of taking ideas seriously, treat ideas with the seriousness of a gutter knife fight.

Miscellany 30: Miscellany Beats Four Aces

(1) Summer 2022: I just found out that General Butt Naked is an actual person!!!

Until then I thought “General Butt Naked” was just a metaphor that Jim of Jim’s Blog had made up.

Actual quote: “When I’m naked I activate my spiritual powers faster.”

O brave new world, that has such people in’t.

(2) LOL: Boston Pride committee acknowledges its systemic racism and disbands over QTBIPOC criticism

July 2021

Boston Pride, a group advocating for the LGBTQIA+ agenda, acknowledged systemic racism within its own organization and disbanded.

The board of directors released a statement explaining the reasons for their disbanding…

“It is clear to us that our community needs and wants change without the involvement of Boston Pride. We have heard the concerns of the QTBIPOC community and others. We care too much to stand in the way,” the statement continued.

“Therefore, Boston Pride is dissolving,” they added. “There will be no further events or programming planned, and the board is taking steps to close down the organization.”

Related: Another leftist group commits suicide over self-confessed “racism”: Auckland chapter of New Zealand’s School Strike 4 Climate group admits racism and disbands

(3) Vox Day quotes an article that says,

The Dalai Lama has sparked controversy after he once again defended White nationalism. [Eye roll.] The elderly monk agreed with the statement that, “white people have a right to exist in their own countries.” Explaining himself, he stated, “I do not think a world without white people would be complete. We should celebrate the whole world’s diversity and that of course means nations being their own. I do not think a France without the French would be a good thing, but completely the opposite. I love all people.”

Going on, he stated that, “I can understand the sadness and despair of Europeans and Americans who worry about losing their countries. Immigrants should return to their own countries, especially those who are from safe places. When I travel to Berlin, I wonder, where are the Germans? I weep for what they have lost.”

(4) Commenter Fireball at, on J. K. Rowling getting daily death threats because of her opposition to the trans thing:

“The old leftists always forget that the revolution doesn’t stop where they are comfortable with it.”

Speaking of which: Police remove lesbians from LBGT parade in Cardiff because they confronted transvestites.

What you did to us is now being done to you. You normalized the politics of “Shut up, you bigot!” And now the politics you created are coming for you.

And again: Women’s rights activists are ‘silenced’ by trans-rights mob clad in black as Bristol anarchists tell feminists they are ‘next’…

And again: The Revolution does not stop where you are comfortable with it.

(5) Oh my God: In Iowa, a man gets sentenced to 1 year in prison for stealing a rainbow gay flag… and another 15 years in prison for burning it, as a “hate crime.”

(6) The three suspected shooters in this mass shooting are all black. Three people were murdered and 14 more were injured. For some reason, there is no front-page coverage of this in the national media. Huh.

For those who will yawn and say, “More leftist hypocrisy, so what?” the response is, Yeah, you may already know that, but somewhere out there are a fuck-ton of 18-year-olds whose political beliefs are just starting to form, and who don’t know it yet. The more we mention this sort of thing, the more those youngsters will happen upon it. One doesn’t call out leftist hypocrisy to shame leftists into stopping the hypocrisy. (As if.) One calls out leftist hypocrisy to draw it to the attention of those whose political beliefs haven’t jelled yet.

(7) “Isolated.” A ton of leftist rhetoric involves this as some sort of “threat.” That reveals what they fear. The latest example as of this writing in 2022 is Vladimir Putin, but there are tons of examples, e.g. Britain during the Brexit debates, etc.

Here’s an example regarding Putin: It has a screen grab of a tweet in which one Teri Schultz writes,

Estonian Premier @kajakallas is exasperated that Vladimir Putin’s phone line is so busy:

“If you really want him to get the message that he’s isolated,” she says, boiling it down. “Don’t. Call. Him.”


“In candid interviews and fly-on-the-wall footage captured by director Amanda Micheli in the summer of 2019, [Jennifer] Lopez tries to keep mum about speculation she’s the “front-runner” to headline the [Superbowl] halftime show. So when the announcement comes that September she’ll be joined by Shakira, Lopez’s team calls it a slight against both women, suggesting that the NFL doesn’t believe Latinas can command the world’s biggest stage solo.”

You cannot appease the woke. Putting not one but two Latinas onstage didn’t quell the accusations of being anti-Latina. And putting three, or three hundred, wouldn’t have done so either. The Left cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.

Not Red Pill in Fiction: The Dirty Girls Social Club

The Dirty Girls Social Club, by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, published in 2003. Fair warning: This is mostly just me venting at the identity politics bait-and-switch that is this “novel.”

Aw, man, I had such high hopes for this one based on the first few pages. Classic female chunks of cheese all over the place (details to follow). Then the estrogen-infused cheese disappears. Worse, it becomes a politically correct race-sex-LBGTQ tract. With no plot, not even a pretend plot. Not even a gesture in the direction of faking an interest in thinking about the possibility of coming up with a plot. Sigh. Well, at least I got this for just 50 cents at a local library book sale. If I’d paid full price for this I’d be pissed. I mean, the title, “The Dirty Girls Social Club,” come on! That’s purposefully designed to trick 25-year-old chicks into buying it, expecting a lot of graphic sex, just so they can be conned into reading the author’s political complaints.

And it started so promisingly! Here’s what I’d written when I was a few pages in:

A “novel” about six “Latina” chicks living in Boston. They call themselves “sucias,” which we’re told means “dirty girls.” Each chapter is narrated by a different chick. At least judging by the first chapter there’s a lot of PC whining about being Hispanic in the US, which I am mostly going to try to ignore. But some of it is bound up with the author’s standard-mold female drama queenery, attention-whoring, and humble-bragging, so it’s impossible to avoid all of it. I hope that later chapters, narrated by other characters, will dial this the fuck down or it’s going to get really old really fast.

(Boy, was that hope dashed.)

But judging from the first 3 pages, this is going to be great as far as the female psychology stuff goes. The narrator of the first chapter is one Lauren Fernandez. In a horribly violent act of cultural genocide, I am omitting the accent mark over that last letter a. (I’m tempted to include an umlaut over one of the consonants, like Spinal Tap.) She bemoans her excessively dramatic life in classic female drama queen fashion – in particular the fact that her boyfriend is cheating on her – does a humblebrag about a guy at the bar checking her out even though she describes herself as “gross,” and obsesses about her fingernails and her variable clothing sizes, thus confirming that if men portrayed women as being half as obsessed with clothing and personal grooming as they actually are, feminists would go into tachycardia. She then returns to the fact that the men in her life all cheat on her. Complete with the standard excuse-making and denial of responsibility: “I don’t pick them, exactly. They find me, with that whacked radar…” All this within the first two pages! You can see why I had high hopes for this one.

She’s a reporter, because of course she is. It had to be either that or lawyer. Assuming that another one of the “dirty girls” is a lawyer, what do the other four do? Can’t wait to find out! My guess as of page 5: One of them does something in education, one works for a charity, and one has some sort of “high-pressure” corporate job. That leaves one for government, maybe “social work” of some kind. LATER: Not one but two “journalists”! And one professional musician: how could I have forgotten “rock star”?

P.6: More PC whining about how hard it is being a non-white chick. Complains that when she doesn’t do her job, a white man dares to note that fact:

“I’m always early. It’s the reporter training—come late, lose the story. Lose the story, risk having some envious and mediocre white guy in the newsroom accuse you of not deserving your job.” Can you believe that? Some white guy might say I don’t deserve my job just because I didn’t do my job! The nerve! I’m a non-white woman! I deserve to keep my job even if I don’t do it! Grr. Talk about entitlement mentality! I’m noting this because it’s relevant on the very next page, so put it in your short term memory.

P. 7: In case you didn’t get the drama queenery a couple of pages ago: “Men like Ed [her boyfriend] find me, because they smell the hidden truth of Lauren on the wind: I hate myself because no one else has ever bothered to love me.” Leaping cats! How do people who are so un-serious take themselves so seriously? You can practically see her striking a pose. The back of one hand presses against her forehead as she slumps to the ground in a faint. From all the drama! Of being forced to date jerks!

Still p. 7: More self-obsessed PC whining: “First week on the job an editor strolled past my desk and said in the deliberate, too-loud English they would all come to use on me, ‘I’m so glad you’re here representing your people.’” No whiteys talk like this to Hispanics, at least not that I’ve ever heard. The other two options are to say “I’m not glad you’re here,” in which case she’d complain about the hostility, or to say nothing, in which case she’d complain about being “culturally erased” or something.

Still p. 7: Check this out: Our Narratrix wants another beer, and is peeved that the waitress is distracted by the bar’s TV: “Como? she asks, looking confused. She was watching a Mexican soap opera on a small TV behind the counter and looks annoyed to be bothered with, you know, work.” Jesus, bitch, it was just at the top of the previous page that you complained about being expected to do your job!

P.9: attention whore ultra-fantasy. Our Narratrix is a reporter, as I may have mentioned once or twice. The paper she works for, The Gazette, has recently, well, read:

“It’s getting a little harder to take public transit because the Gazette recently put up billboards all over town with my huge red-brown curly hair and grinning freckled face on them, accompanied by the idiotic words ‘Lauren Fernandez: Her Casa Is Your Casa, Boston.’”

This chick—I mean the author, Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez— is 200-proof female psychology. You can sense her having some sort of attention-whoregasm as she fantasizes about having her face on billboards all over a major city.

Why the billboard thing targeted to Hispanics? Because…

“Money talks, see. Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace taking over the public schools with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.”

What you mean “we,” hon? On several previous pages you mentioned that you don’t speak Spanish, and acted all aggrieved that whiteys might assume that you did just because you’re, you know… Hispanic. (She actually calls that assumption “illogical.”) Now in the context of the Spanish language you’re suddenly using the word “we.”

Seriously, from page 7:

“Here’s how my job interview went: You’re a Latina? How… neat. You must speak Spanish, then? When you’ve got $15.32 in your bank account… what do you say to a question like that, even when the answer is no? …With a name like Lauren Fernandez, they figured Spanish was part of the package. But that’s the American disease as I see it: rampant, illogical stereotyping.” (If you hate it so much here, you are quite welcome to leave.) And page 8: “But what I thought was: Just hire me. I’ll learn Spanish later.”

Having explicitly stated that she doesn’t speak Spanish, and called anyone who assumes she does a bigot, she then says, “Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace… with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.” We?

Let’s skip ahead 100 pages to page 105: Her boss Chuck, a ridiculous dorky white man – of course – can’t speak Spanish. While she doesn’t actually say “I’m aggrieved by this!” it’s a strong subtext:

“It wasn’t until [blah blah] that Chuck figured out who Ricky Martin was. Now he goes around, years too late, singing “Livin’ la Vida Loca,” only he can’t say vida and he can’t say loca, so he ends up singing ‘Livin’ Evita Loqua.’”

He can’t pronounce words in Spanish – a language which I don’t speak either. But I’m going to act aggrieved anyway. It’s so culturally insennnnnnsitive! How DARE you not speak a language which I also don’t speak?! You fucking American bigot!

I remember when Livin’ la Vida Loca was a hit. I never encountered a whitey who couldn’t say it. “Vida” and “loca” are easy words to say. She couldn’t even be bothered to come up with a word that contains, for example, the letter ñ (say “enye”), which is not pronounced like n, and which a non-Spanish speaker might actually be confused about. For someone who writes so voluminously – you should read the 100 pages of pointless filler I skipped over – she sure is a lazy writer. How hard would it have been to make up such an example?

Enraging though all this is, it’s a great example of the sheer illogicality of leftism and female-think. And when you combine leftism and female-think, WOW. First she whines that she’s expected to do her job (how unfair!). Then whines that the waitress isn’t doing her job. Then she denies speaking Spanish, then acts personally aggrieved that some whiteys might have a low opinion of Spanish. Jeez. The sheer lack of any consistency, or any concern for consistency, really is shocking. Yeah, I know I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve been studying leftists, and women, for decades. Yet the Satan-level hypocrisy and double standards make steam come out of my ears.

A Net search reveals that the author of this identity-politics Communist Manifesto got a job at the Los Angeles Times after this novel was published. (The double-journalist set of characters was obviously an author-insert fantasy.) Anyway, she ended up quitting her job at the L.A. Times, accusing that paper of… can you guess? I bet you can! … racism and sexism! Surprise!

In what other country in the world would people put up with this crap? If you went to China, got a cushy “job” as a “reporter” and then quit with complaints that the newspaper was full of Chinese people, I’m pretty sure they’d “invite” you to leave the country. Only in the white world do we let people come to our countries and abuse us this way. The situation cannot last.

Back to it. P. 102: a diatribe against a right-wing journalist lying. Unreal. Who lies more, right-wing journalists or left-wing journalists? On the same page, a diatribe against a right-wing political group throwing Molotov cocktails. Bitch, please! Who throws more Molotov cocktails, right-wingers or left-wingers? It really is true that leftists always project.

Also on page 102: She recalls that when she started working at the newspaper, an old hand gave her three pieces of advice, Blah, Blah-blah, and “Three, don’t wear your skirts so short ’cuz you’re makin’ me sweat.” You wish, honey.

P. 103: Back near the start of the book, the Narratrix had recalled a scene in which a college professor was so scared of having several hispanic women in the class that he was literally trembling. (WTF?) on p. 103 we get more surreal fantasizing that white people find her scary because she’s hispanic: “I love my desk. I have draped it in Mexican rugs and Santeria beads just to scare everyone.” Then, in the same paragraph, some whining about her boss sending her out to cover a story and adding, “Bring me back some biscotti, almond.” Ah, yes, I always order people I’m scared of to run errands for me.

P. 103-4: Complaining about how her boss sent her on a job to cover some Mexican laborers. How dare he assume that I’m Mexican, just because I’m hispanic! MAYBE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU DRAPED MEXICAN RUGS ALL OVER YOUR DESK, YOU FUCKING CUNT.

Alright, I’m done. Pretty sure this book doesn’t contain any fun “dirty girl” stuff, now that I’m more than 100 pages into it. Given that nothing prefigured by the title actually appears in the novel, as far as I can tell, I infer that the title was purely chosen to trick people into reading the identity politics screeching.

SJW Attack on a Black Female Author of Gay Porn

If you think your demographic characteristics or your “Love wins” bumper sticker make you safe, you are dangerously out of contact with current reality.

Another day, another surreal accusation of hateful statements against…Gypsies?


The author, Stephanie Burke, is a long-time attendee and panelist at Fantasy/SciFi conventions like the one in Baltimore, Balticon. At the latest Balticon she was falsely accused of various statements of the type that that politically correct people like to screech about. I say she was falsely accused because the recording of one panel she spoke at turned up nothing “offensive,” a witness at another panel recalled nothing “offensive,” and when she requested to know the evidence against her, the accuser laughed in her face.

After being falsely and frivolously accused of making objectionable statements, she was roughly and loudly removed from yet another panel where she was scheduled to speak, in view of many audience members. Burke generally had her name dragged through the mud with bizarre accusations about insulting Gypsies and transgenders, the latter being particularly weird since she says she has a “transgendered daughter” herself.

Burke is a black woman with a transgendered child and she has written a book of gay porn gay romance. Here’s the link at Amazon (where it’s categorized as “Fantasy” for some reason). She also claims to have neurological issues, so she could play the “ablest” card.

None of this protected her.

In case you’re a leftist who is just starting to explore “right-wing” thought, or who wound up here by accident, this is why we have sayings like “The Left always eats its own,” “The Revolution devours its children,” etc. That last saying came from Jacques Mallet du Pan’s observations on the French Revolution in response to events like Robespierre being executed without trial by his fellow leftist revolutionaries, shortly after he recommended that… “counterrevolutionaries” be executed without trial. LOL. And remember how Trotsky died. These sayings exist because they’re true.

I imagine Stephanie Burke thought herself absolutely bulletproof: She’s a female, black, gay-porn writing, mother of a transgender, with neurological issues. Yet all that amounted to nothing. She might as well have been a straight white man in a MAGA hat.

Each individual leftist always has a bizarre fantasy that the revolution will stop precisely where he wants it to stop. Of course this is ridiculous. Leftism is a machine and once you’ve started it rolling downhill you cannot stop it where you please. Yes, this applies to you.

Or, to switch metaphors:

It’s easy to invite a vampire into your house, but getting it to leave again is another matter.

“My god is stronger than your god!”

Severian at Founding Questions has recently been thinking about Julian Jaynes’s “bicameral mind” theory. Halfway through the book I’ve decided I’m not a fan of Jaynes – his logical leaps based on irrelevant evidence can be quite, er, impressive. But as he notes, his theory has different parts, and some may be sorta true for some people even if other aspects are completely false. One part is that people in olden times used to hallucinate voices which they interpreted as instructions from gods or kings.

This part could apply in particular to leftists, by which I mean street-level leftists (not the leadership). Leftists were hit with the tag “NPC”— “non-player character”— for a reason. They can’t think, they have no desire to think, they don’t even know what thinking is. They just look around for authority to obey.

(Women are particularly notorious for this, among red-pilled men, but it’s a general phenomenon on the left.)

Leftists only care about which god/king is the strongest, and which god/king is the strongest is decided by which one has more adherents.

(Or perhaps it’s power-weighted adherents that matters. One famous sports star has as much weight as ten regular people, or whatever.)

This certainly could be one way of accounting for leftists’ baffling and infuriating total indifference to fact, truth, common sense, or even internal consistency. They simply don’t care about those things. They’re just looking around for the most powerful god. And the most powerful god is the one whose voice is most powerful. This accounts for the fact that to them, what’s on TV is what matters, pretty much by definition. TV is the voice of the god in modern society. If you’re saying something that’s opposed to TV, you’re opposing the only thing that matters, the voice of Authority. Leftists are utterly baffled by why you’d want to do that.

This is one of the reasons that their opposition to President Trump was so shriekingly disproportionate. Imagine that nothing matters to you but obeying and publicly repeating what Authority says. As long as Harvard, the New York Times, and the President all speak with one voice, no problem. But if Harvard and the New York Times say one thing and the President says the opposite… Disaster! Catastrophe! The end of the world! Two camps, both of indisputable Authority, saying opposite things! You don’t know whom to obey! This is what leftists have in place of cognitive dissonance. And it’s agonizing for them. Hypocrisy obviously does not bother them in the least. Saying that white people who flee black neighborhoods are evil, while being a white person fleeing a black neighborhood, doesn’t even register with them. But not knowing who to obey, that is the worst emotional and intellectual torture that it is possible for them to experience. And yet… of course they know that really it was Trump who was out of step with True Authority: He disagreed with what “journalists” and college professors said! That is literally the most heretical of all possible heresies! But still, the Presidency is nevertheless very real, undeniably important and valid Authority. Anything to stop this pain of divided Authority!

This explains the enraging tendency for leftists, noted by pretty much every person on the right, to be utterly immune to fact and logic 99% of the time… and if you do, miraculously, manage to wrest a concession about some issue from them, the next time you see them they’ll have done a complete memory wipe of the debate and tell you they kicked your ass in that debate. All the facts, logic, reason, arguments that you marshaled will have been forgotten, absolutely forgotten. Why? And how? Simple: They don’t actually care about any of those things. The voice of Authority is telling them something different from what you proved yesterday, ergo you cannot have proved it.

Today you get one of them to admit that, say, government policies were the preponderant cause of the mortgage bubble and collapse of circa 2008. “Thank God!” you think. “That took seven hours of debate but at least I made a tiny dent in leftism.” But lo and behold! When you see him the next day he tells you that you proved no such thing and that the mortgage collapse was entirely caused by greedy white male capitalist loan officers. He totally denies everything that he conceded less than 24 hours before, to an utterly shameless extent that would be gaslighting if he were doing it on purpose. But that’s not really what’s going on; he’s not thinking “Bwah ha ha; I shall now gaslight this person.” What’s going on is that within 5 seconds of leaving your presence he reboots and reinstalls the Official Party Line of Authority, and the Official Party Line of Authority is that the mortgage meltdown was caused by greedy white male capitalist loan officers.

(If he’s not totally goodthinkful leftist— that is, if facts sorta enter his head, in a dim way, once or twice a year— the rebooting may require that he hop onto the Net and read a sentence or two of some Op-Ed that appeared on CNN’s web site, which reminds him of what Authority’s official position is.)

Authority’s official position is a substitute for the truth in his little leftist NPC mind. It is isomorphic to the truth in the NPC mental topology. We have truth; they have “what Authority says.”

Authority’s Official Party Line is not necessarily truth— which does not exist in any important sense in the leftist mind— rather, Authority’s Official Party Line is What We Are Saying. What We Say is what Authority Says. Repeating What Authority Says is What We Do and the truth of the claims assertions propositions strings of words is not even a question that it occurs to leftists to ask, let alone care about.

We have truth; leftists have What Authority Says.

An example. Remember when you got up this morning. Think about the shirt you’re wearing now (shirt, dress, blouse, whatever). Remember how, before you put it on, you counted every thread in it to make sure that it doesn’t have a prime number of threads? Wait, what? You didn’t do that? It didn’t even OCCUR to you to do that? The thought never even entered your head? That’s how leftists are about the truth of the claims wordstrings they repeat. It literally never enters their heads to care whether they’re true or not. If they think about it at all, they think WE’RE the weird ones because we care about truth!

This also accounts for the bizarre leftist tactic in debate of saying “No one else agrees with you.” To them this is a devastating nuclear bomb. They expect you to be crushed. Or at least to care. That we brush it off and go on talking about facts probably baffles and frustrates them as much as their total indifference to facts baffles and frustrates us.

So we won’t make progress in defeating the broad mass of the leftist cadre until we take over the educational system and the media. Yikes. That’s not going to happen short of a no-foolin’ civil war. Luckily— “luckily,” snort— the left is bumbling us into one with their insanity and hysterical refusal to compromise about anything ever. Also, the domestic situation will be shaken up enormously, natch, if we get involved with a war with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. And that could happen if our insane NPCs don’t back off. And so far they’re refusing to back off…

Leftists Eaten by Monsters They Created (part of an occasional series)

(Part 1 here.)

Robespierre: “We need a Reign of Terror.” French revolutionaries: “Okay! Au revoir, Robsy!”

Here’s a link at of some examples of communists killing leftist intellectuals:

The litany is depressing. Especially for any tenured radical drawing taxpayer money to cheer on the violence. Mao famously boasted of “burying 46,000 scholars alive” meaning he shipped them wholesale to concentration camps so they would shut up and die. Pol Pot’s radical communist movement famously executed intellectuals in the thousands, extending to anybody who wore glasses.

…This gives no pleasure to point out. [LOL, speak for yourself, dude.] None of us want radical leftists hanging from lampposts [that depends; did they assassinate people for having “wrong” politics? Cough Michael Reinoehl, cough], or executed in Che’s office for his entertainment.

LOL, lefties who supported the Castro regime can’t complain if they’re “executed in Che’s office for his entertainment.”

And then there’s Maximilien Robespierre.

Robespierre, a bloodthirsty power-mad leftist, explicitly argued that Louis XVI should not even be allowed the benefit of a trial for his alleged crimes:

Louis was a king, and our republic is established… Louis cannot therefore be judged; he already is judged. He is condemned, or the republic cannot be absolved. To propose to have a trial of Louis XVI, in whatever manner one may, is to retrogress to royal despotism and constitutionality; it is a counter-revolutionary idea… if Louis may still be given a trial, he may be absolved, and innocent. What am I to say? He is presumed to be so until he is judged. But if Louis is absolved, if he may be presumed innocent, what becomes of the revolution?

Note that Robespierre literally argues that Louis shouldn’t get a trial because he might be found innocent. There are few better examples of poetic justice in history, than Robespierre being executed by the revolution of which he was a leader.

It’s particularly delicious in that his execution came after he pulled a U-turn on his opposition to the death penalty for Louis:

As for myself, I abhor the death penalty… the death penalty is in general a crime, unjustifiable by the indestructible principles of nature, except in cases protecting the safety of individuals or the society altogether… But for a king dethroned in the bosom of a revolution, which is as yet cemented only by laws; a king whose name attracts the scourge of war upon a troubled nation; neither prison, nor exile can render his existence inconsequential to public happiness… With regret I pronounce this fatal truth: Louis must die so that the nation may live.

“With regret” my ass. He’s thirsting to see Louis executed.

Note too the recognition that the King was a natural coordination point/Schelling point for a possible counter-revolution. Robespierre lays down a lot of high-falutin’ language about “protecting the safety of society,” but much of what he’s really saying is, “People opposed to our rule might be able to resist our dominance more effectively if this guy is alive, so let’s kill him.”

After the politics of the Revolution escaped his influence, Robespierre, advocate of the Reign of Terror, was arrested and, the next day, executed without trial.

Bonus: There was an attempted Epsteining of Robespierre before his official execution:

Robespierre tried to kill himself with a pistol but managed only to shatter his lower jaw, although some eyewitnesses claimed that Robespierre was shot by Charles-André Merda.

Merda himself claimed to have shot Robespierre, so there would seem to be little doubt about the attempted Epsteining. Some things about the left never change. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!

One could add innumerable other examples; Trotsky comes to mind. Maybe I’ll get to him in the future; watch this space!

But let’s get a little closer to home.

2020: Left-wing holiness spiral accelerates: NYT editor pressured into resigning after allowing thoughts his SJW employees don’t like.

For some reason this song comes to mind.

More examples at Reason magazine:

Anyone who still doubts that woke progressives can pose a material threat to the pursuit of truth should consider the case of David Shor. A week ago, as protests over the unjust police killing of George Floyd took place in major cities across the country, Shor—a 28-year-old political scientist at the Democratic consulting firm Civis Analytics—tweeted… research by Princeton University’s Omar Wasow, who has found that violent protests often backfire whereas nonviolent protests are far more likely to succeed. The impulse behind Shor’s tweet was a perfectly liberal one: He feels progressive reforms are more palatable to the public when protesters eschew violence.

But many progressive activists on social media didn’t care whether the impulse was liberal, or even whether it reflected reality. They denounced Shor as a racist for daring to scrutinize the protesters, even if his aim was to make them more effective. One activist accused Shor of using his “anxiety and ‘intellect’ as a vehicle for anti-blackness.” Then she tagged Civis Analytics, and invited the company to “come get your boy.”

Get him, they did. Civis Analytics promptly fired Shor.

Jim of Jim’s Blog has said that one of the reasons he left communism in his youth was that he noticed that “Right-wingers kill their enemies; left-wingers kill their friends.”

Left-wingers kill everybody, very much including other lefties.

Defining Leftism

At HerbR provides a good list of definitions of leftism:

– De Jouvenel AKA HLvM [high and low vs. the middle]: Elites weaponizing underclass (collectively “left”) against middle class (“right”).
– Cladistic: Leftist ideologies all share common memes and derive from common ancestor(s).
– Social-network: Leftism inferred from personal/institutional ties, parties attended, etc.
– Antinomian: Christian definition, elevating “divine grace” over established law, usually to describe Puritan/Quaker movements.
– Revolutionary: Actual etymology of “Left/Right”, the revolutionaries vs. royalists – more generally, hatred of non “consensual” authority.
– Economic: Leftism as destruction/”redistribution” of capital, rightism as capital creation.
– R/K: Leftism/rightism as manifestations of different reproductive strategies (r and K, like rabbit vs. wolf).
– Status-maximizing: Leftists as “sociopathic status maximizers”, best to just google it.
– Warrior/priest: Jim Lite, leftism as priestly rule, rightism as warrior rule.
– Game-theoretical: Leftism as defect/defect, rightism as cooperate/cooperate.
– Thermodynamic: Leftism as social entropy, that which creates disorder and regresses us to a more primitive state without constant energy input.

But this list isn’t supposed to be a “pick any one you want” buffet, the reason the list exists is that all of the models have some predictive power (some more so than others) and none of them are complete.

Here’s my take on the main (not the only) defining feature of leftism:

Leftists are people who want the unearned.

Welfare recipients are an obvious example but a lot of it is more subtle, e.g. demands for employment via affirmative action.

But it’s not only people who want unearned money, jobs, etc.

It’s also that fat chick who doesn’t want to exercise or go on a diet, and who demands that beauty standards be overturned so that she’s considered attractive (LOL).

It’s that “Oscars So White” movement demanding that more honors for great acting be awarded to black actors. Not with any reason provided, just there “aren’t enough” Oscars awarded to black actors.

It’s people who say the safest possible things in our society and expect to be praised for their courage. An NFL player came out as homosexual a few months ago and articles on his announcement were constantly calling him “brave,” “courageous,” etc., even though there is nothing safer in the current US than announcing that one is homosexual.

Leftist psychology is eternal. C.S. Lewis portrayed the contemptible demand to call playing it safe “courageous” in 1945: In his novel The Great Divorce there’s a conversation in the afterlife between two souls who were friends in life. One was a priest, and they are talking about their attitude toward religious matters when they were alive:

“It all turns on what are honest opinions.” [the non-priest says.]
“Mine certainly were. They were not only honest but heroic. I asserted them fearlessly. When the doctrine of the Resurrection ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given me, I openly rejected it. I preached my famous sermon. I defied the whole chapter. I took every risk.”
“What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came — popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?”

Lewis wouldn’t have bothered to satirize such outrageous claims of courage unless they were prevalent in his day. This crap didn’t originate with wokeness. Some details of leftist politics change over time, but there is a definite leftist psychology, and its basic features never change.

Hilariously Grandiose Commentary on the Gay NFL Guy

Back in July, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib announced that he is homosexual, thus becoming the first active NFL player to do so. The commentary on this was over the top, as one would expect in CURRENT YEAR. Here are three examples.

Frank Bodani, York Daily Record

“He may well become a beacon for acceptance, in light of his historic Monday announcement regarding his sexual orientation.”

Right, because our society doesn’t have enough acceptance of homosexuality. Meanwhile, back in reality, gay couples are profligately featured on television, both in the programming and in advertisements.

What involves greater risk – THESE DAYS, NOT 100 YEARS AGO – saying you’re homosexual or saying you’re anti-homosexual?

PS: “historic.” Oh, shut up.

“Arians, a York High graduate, owns the most diverse staff in the NFL. His Super Bowl-winning Bucs are the only team with four African-American coordinators and two full-time female coaches.”

Have I been dosed with enough hallucinogens to fell a horse, or did this guy just suggest that there aren’t enough blacks in the NFL?

Then we get a quote from Nassib’s former coach at Penn State, James Franklin:

“Carl’s brave announcement will forge a path for others to be true to their authentic self.”

FOR FUCK’S SAKE! Sometimes I feel like I could handle the propaganda blast if it weren’t so intelligence-insulting. Stop saying that coming out in 2021 is “brave”!

Bodani provides this side note:

“Franklin, meanwhile, is the first African-American head coach in Penn State history.”

Franklin is Penn State coach, and not Joe Paterno, because Paterno was fired for covering up the gay child sex assaults that happened under his watch.
Do an article on that gay guy, Bodani!

Mike Freeman, USA Today

The headline: “Carl Nassib’s coming out doesn’t just make history. Raiders DL [defensive lineman] could save lives.”

Oh for fuck’s sake! “Could save lives.” This is the most grandiose thing you could say. If you’re a leftist, notice that your “thought leaders” aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they’re just trolling you now.

The article begins,
“To fully understand just how brave, how stunning, how historic it is…”
GOD! HELP US! PLEASE! Not so much from the gay as from the screaming insults to our intelligence!

Reality check: In 2021, Nassib’s announcement is not in the least brave, not in the least stunning, and not in the least historic.

So brave! Meanwhile, back in reality, it’s literally the safest thing that a white male could do. He can’t change himself to a female and he can’t change himself to black, so announcing that he’s gay is the only way he can acquire political correctness points.

Actually, according to the reigning ideology, he could change himself to female by simply announcing that he’s female. OK, so it’s one of the two safest things he could do. Being safe, huddling behind an identity politics politically correct SJW victim shield is, speaking precisely, the exact opposite of brave. In our society it is the very definition of riskless playing it safe.

So of course the left claims that it’s “brave,” with their perverted sexual fetish for saying the exact opposite of the truth.

Freeman continues,

“All of those things [“hate,” etc.] likely forced a legion of NFL players to stay cloaked and hide who they truly were. They couldn’t publicly say they were gay because they might be physically attacked in the locker room. Or cut by the team. Or any number of other things that could have destroyed them or their careers.”

“Might be,” “could have…” Typically, the left is trying to get people outraged about things that never actually happened.

“Former NFL player Roy Simmons came out after his NFL career. When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application for a radio row Super Bowl credential.”

Bullshit. It’s not clear what this means, but it seems Simmons requested press credentials for the 2006 Superbowl… three days before it (see below). Freeman nastily implies that Simmons’s request was denied because he was homosexual. He offers no evidence to support this claim. He uses the slimy phrasing “When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application…” No, it wasn’t denied “when” he published his book. Slimy insinuations without evidence from the left. I’ve been studying leftists for decades and they still disgust me.

Per Wikipedia’s article on Simmons: “In 2006, three days before the Super Bowl, Simmons requested a media credential and two tickets to the game. The NFL denied his request, saying that it had received too many similar requests to accommodate all of them.”

Well, yes, I imagine that the requests for free tickets to the Superbowl— the largest sporting event in the US— far outstrip their availability. Especially if you don’t ask until three days before it! By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Simmons tried to get all victimy about this, with the help of… wait for it… Gloria Allred, the ambulance-chasing lawyer who is so frequently on the scene when there’s a leftist cause to be litigated.

“What Nassib has done is help make being gay in the NFL less something to fear. But it’s bigger than even that. His announcement may have saved lives.”


“Maybe a troubled LGBTQ teen, some of whom contemplate suicide, according to surveys, will see Nassib’s words and…”


NFL practice squad gay Michael Sam “has said in interviews that the first time he truly understood the power of coming out was after a girl told him his announcement saved her life. She had been bullied and had been on suicide watch.”


“‘I decided to be the shield and the sword,’ Sam said…”

OK, well thanks for not getting too grandiose or anything.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refuses to be outdone in terms of breathless rhetoric:

“The NFL family is proud of Carl for courageously sharing his truth today,” Goodell said in a statement. “Representation matters. We share his hope that someday soon statements like his will no longer be newsworthy as we march toward full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. We wish Carl the best of luck this coming season.”

“The NFL family.” Ugh. Shut up, Goodell.

“is proud of Carl” For what? Being homosexual? How is that an accomplishment?

“for courageously sharing his truth” It’s not courageous! Nothing is safer in CURRENT YEAR than announcing that one is homosexual! Stop lying!

Since being homosexual is not an accomplishment (as admitted by the “gay community” themselves, since they say they’re born gay and can’t help it) there’s no way to praise being homosexual other than by pivoting, i.e. changing the subject. In our society in CURRENT YEAR, the pivot is to claiming that it’s dangerous to announce that one is homosexual (as if) and so such announcements are “brave.” Ugh. Just shut up, you intelligence-insulting douchebags.

Miscellany 24: Shred the Miscellany like You’re a Surfer and It’s the Ultimate Wave

(1) June 2021, the Dark Herald makes a side remark about Lois McMaster Bujold’s novel Memory, prompting me to glance at its Wikipedia article. I find this:

“After years of refusing to marry any of the tall, slim, eligible Barrayaran ladies paraded in front of him…Gregor unexpectedly falls in love with a short, voluptuous Komarran…”

I.e., short and fat. I’m guessing this is a fiction version of…
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

(2) First, some background: The Williams Institute at UCLA is a gay and lesbian think tank. In 2011 they released a study claiming that 3.5% of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual. (A little over half of those are people, mostly women, who identify as bi.) And since this is a gay think tank, they have an incentive to exaggerate the number. So this is an upper bound on the percent of homo- and bi-sexuals.

With that number in mind, let’s consider a recently-published novel.

Leigh Bardugo’s Crooked Kingdom is a novel about a criminal gang of seven people (To recall them for those who have read it: Kaz, Inej, Matthias, Nina, Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei). Three of the seven are homo or bi: Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei. In the follow-up King of Scars, per Cataline Sergius’s review June 2021, Nina becomes a lesbian, making it 4 out of 7. So more than half of the main characters are homosexual or bisexual.

This is not about “representation.”

(3) A funny aspect of Game: Because it starts by accepting certain features of female psychology like their desire for assholes instead of nice guys, one way of describing Game in general terms is

“Men cannot change women. Men have to accept women as they are.”

If just left at that, it would prompt shouts of agreement from women in general and feminists in particular: “Right on, pal!” “Preach it, brother!” “You got that right!” But the details— what it actually means to take women as they are instead of trying to change them— is something that fills feminists with rage. Feminists of course cannot abide any speech other than “All women are totally perfect in every way.” And women in general do not like to be understood in the mating game: it destroys much of their power in the game.

(4) Uri Harris, July 2017: Even moderate leftists are becoming rarer in academia.

“What is particularly striking about this shift is that the number of moderates has dropped sharply among professors…

As part of the survey, members were asked to identify their political affiliation on an eleven-point scale, from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’…

Intriguingly, the least popular point among the left-of-centre points was the most moderate one… More than two thirds (67.8 per cent) chose one of the three points furthest to the left on an eleven-point scale, and more than a third (38 per cent) chose one of the two points furthest to the left. And 16 per cent chose the furthest possible point to the left on an eleven-point scale.

This means that there were almost as many people who chose the furthest possible point to the left as there were who chose all the conservative points, the centre-point and the most moderate left-of-centre point combined.”

(5) I once read that an old definition of heresy was focusing on one of God’s attributes at the expense of others. I don’t think this definition is doctrine, but maybe it should be, since it could damp holiness spiraling. For example, focusing on God’s justice at the cost of ignoring his mercy, or focusing on God’s mercy at the cost of ignoring his justice, would be heresies.

In an environment in which promulgating heresies in this sense is energetically punished, holiness spiraling probably would have a harder time getting off the ground: You and your buddies start holiness spiraling about who can be most like God in the sense of being most just. But soon the inquisitor shows up (or tons of people weigh in on Twitter) to give you a warning about obsessing about God’s justice at the expense of ignoring His mercy. And the opposite if you’re spiraling on mercy. It could be a built-in moderator.

As I was surfing around on this topic I came across the same thought here:

The problem, rather, is judging the acceptability of statements and actions on the basis of a single sacred criterion. Fundamentalism in this sense is part-and-parcel of the piety contest. No matter what your foundational principle, if you have only one, there will be bullets you have to bite.

The defense against piety contests, therefore, is to cultivate a multiplicity of irreducible sacred values. This gives the moral community a vantage point from which to evaluate the consequences of each norm against something else. Christianity, for example, is filled with pairs of concepts that orthodoxy holds “in tension”: trinity and unity, free will and predestination, grace and works, and so on. Indeed, heresy has been defined as emphasizing one element of one of these pairs at the expense of the other, and throughout Christianity’s history it has been heretical movements of just this sort that have been filled with the fervent zeal of the piety contest.

(6) Biden appoints a person who said that blacks are genetically superior to whites as his civil rights Czar.
The nominee is Kristen Clarke. Writing in the Harvard Crimson,

Clarke cited a number of “experts” regarding what she called the “truth” about the “genetic differences between blacks and whites.”

She posited that “human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” Additionally, “melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities.”

The liberal editors of [Harvard University newspaper] The Crimson found Clarke’s “racist theories” to be “outrageous,” saying that Clarke had “resorted to bigotry, pure and simple.”… Not long after she penned her letter claiming that blacks are genetically superior to other racial groups, the Black Students Association under her leadership invited professor Tony Martin to campus.

A notorious anti-Semite, Martin’s ensuing lecture about his tract, “The Jewish Onslaught,” was apparently a racist diatribe against the Jewish people, their history, and their traditions, claiming they were the source of the supposedly “ordained” notion of “African inferiority.”

Yet Clarke told The Harvard Crimson that “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”


(7) Related: In the comments at, Rick says “This isn’t surprising but remember to let your people know the score:
Black guy murders white retired police chief, confesses to the crime and the all black jury lets him walk.”

Here’a another link which confirms that he was acquitted:, though neither link mentions the race of the jurors.

(8) France is worried that US identity politics is penetrating France and damaging it. It’s good to know that they have the sense to be worried. Though it might be too late at this point.

“French President Emmanuel Macron has joined numerous French intellectuals & journalists in warning that ‘out-of-control woke leftism of US campuses and its attendant cancel culture’ poses a grave threat due to the social strife it creates.”

Cozying Up with a Good Book is Racist

1. It “helps to mask institutional racism.”

“It’s time for hygge (pronounced hoo-gah)… The Danish concept of hygge – its closest translation into English being ‘cosiness’… As an idea and lifestyle hygge seems pretty harmless, it encourages people to take time out of their day to enjoy the little things in life, make a soothing mug of hot chocolate and snuggle up in warm knits in front of the TV – or a log fire if you want to stay true to the Danish aesthetic.

Danish ‘cosiness’ is a notion that is not extended to those who are black or brown…”

“Extended to”? What the fuck? If you want to curl up with some hot chocolate, who’s stopping you?

2. Scandinavia Standard:

“Most people are familiar with the Danish concept of hygge [“most people”? Anyway…] and the image of candles and coziness it conveys… But hygge is more about a social atmosphere where all members participate: fun and conflict-free. It’s within this context that hyggeracisme happens; where one hears the N-word or sees a Nazis gesture in the name of ‘fun.’”

Danish people in 2020 giving Nazi salutes, uh-huh. Sure. This is good example of how leftists always lie about everything.

But even if this were actually true— it’s not— it is of course completely retarded. If people give Nazi salutes in houses, that proves that…. houses are racist!

3. Slate weighs in.

“The endless stream of books published on the subject stress the benefits of Ugg-booted inertia and snug living rooms, covers pulled right up around adherents’ necks against the chilly world outside… It’s with a terrifying but unwitting accuracy, though, that Helen Russell, in The Year of Living Danishly, calls hygge a ‘complete absence of anything annoying or emotionally overwhelming.’”

Yeah, terrifying.

“Hygge’s turning inward against the world outside comes with a more sinister edge, however. As Charlotte Higgins pointed out… hygge’s ties to the far-right in Denmark are remarkably strong. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party, has publicly extolled the virtues of the lifestyle, insisting that her office remain cozy and hyggelig at all times.”

My God! Hitler used to read books! And he was a vegetarian! Reading and vegetarianism are Nazi things! In fact, vegetarianism’s ties to Naziism are remarkably strong.

“Denmark’s welfare state and reputation for tolerance may be admired by progressives in the U.K. and U.S., but, as Higgins points out, the country’s love of hyggefied thatched cottages with closed doors suggests a conservative undercurrent.”


But surely there’s some evidence that hygge is somehow racist? Apparently not, since here’s the best Slate can do: In some online forum, someone accused someone else of making a “little Hyggelig racist joke.” So Slate uses the common leftist move of citing someone else’s accusation made without evidence as if it somehow supports Slate’s own accusations made without evidence. They then mention that someone else in the forum, fed up with this sort of “You racist!” bullshit, called the accuser a homosexual. And this came “from a user with the word Hygge in their username.” Well, the original “racism” accusation dragged the word “hygge” into the discussion! If my user name contained the word “baseball” and you said “baseball is racist,” I might be angry too. Duh.

So what is all this really about? I think it’s about white Europeans daring to take pleasure in anything, anything at all, instead of spending every waking hour attending White People Are Evil seminars. And there is a haunting suspicion among the identity-politics left— all the left these days— that the company being enjoyed, by people sitting around enjoying each other’s company, might be Danish! Actual Danish Danish people. (As opposed to “nationality is paperwork” Danes.)

And the books being read may be books written by… Danes! And these books might not be condemning— in fact they might actually be celebrating!— traditional Danish culture! We can’t have that!

Think I’m kidding? Try this quote from the Slate article:

Some writer “says that it [hygge] falls in line with a ‘postcolonial drawbridge theory—the What was lost without [will be found within] way of valuing what little cultural and economic capital Denmark had left after the loss of its empire.’”

“How DARE you value and cherish your culture! You vicious racist!”