Categories
Leftism Politics

Though I am curious about what they used for lube in Mississippi in the 1800s

Here are some quotes from the USA Today article “5 books not to miss”, January 2, 2021. I present the entire list of books from the article with some of its commentary on the books, and the whole fucking thing is leftist cultural propaganda. You’d think that a tiny saving grace would be that, every once in a while, leftists would get bored of constantly spewing propaganda. Nnnnnnnope. They fucking love it!

  1. “The Prophets,” by Robert Jones Jr.

What it’s about: Jones’ powerful debut novel centers on a forbidden love between two enslaved gay men on an antebellum Mississippi plantation.

The buzz: Kirkus Reviews calls it an “ambitious, imaginative, and important tale of Black queerness through history.”

So two men fuck each other in the ass. Yeah, so?

  1. “Outlawed,” by Anna North

What it’s about: It’s 1894, and Ada is an outlaw. After a year of marriage and no pregnancy, in a town that hangs barren women as witches, the teenage wife joins the notorious Hole in the Wall Gang, a new safe haven for outcast women.

The buzz: “It’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ meets ‘True Grit’ in the best sense…”

  1. “A Lie Someone Told You About Yourself,” by Peter Ho Davies.

What it’s about: A family has a child after terminating an earlier pregnancy that yielded catastrophic test results and grapples with the decision made and the unending work of parenting.

  1. “Bone Canyon,” by Lee Goldberg

What it’s about: Eve Ronin, the youngest female homicide detective in LA, always feels like she has something to prove, but especially when a cold case heats up…

  1. “The Push,” by Ashley Audrain

What it’s about: Blythe never wanted to be a mother but changes her mind for a man she loves. But motherhood turns out to be everything she feared and her conviction that there is something deeply wrong with her daughter tears her family apart.

Summarizing: “Black queerness through history” plus “slavery!” (the Emacipation Proclamation was in 1863, more than 150 years ago) plus “Yay, abortion!” plus other forms of anti-natalism (“the unending work of parenting”) plus “women, oppressed by the Patriarchy as they are, have something to prove.”

Apropos of nothing, here’s a quote from Orwell’s 1984:

Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.

Categories
Leftism Politics

Abusive Relationship Chart

Does any of this sound familiar?

You may be in an abusive relationship if they…

  1. Stop you seeing friends and family.
  2. Won’t let you go out without permission.
  3. Tell you what to wear.
  4. Monitor your phone or emails.
  5. Control the finances, or won’t let you work.
  6. Control what you read, watch, and say.
  7. Monitor everything you do.
  8. Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing!
  9. Tell you it is for your own good, and that they know better.
  10. Don’t allow you to question it.
  11. Tell you you’re crazy, and no one agrees with you.
  12. Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish.
  13. Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself.
  14. Dismiss your opinions.
  15. Play the victim. If things go wrong, it’s all your fault.
Categories
Civil war Leftism Politics

Another Day, Another Spew of Leftist Projection

A spew of projection from SJW lefty Scott Aaronson.

Aaronson discusses Will He Go?, a book by “legal scholar” Lawrence Douglas. Douglas, being a projecting leftist, kvetches about the bizarre scenario of Trump losing in November 2020, but not admitting that he has lost and trying to stay in the White House. Plainly this is just the usual projection, after the left refused to accept the outcome of 2016. Now they are trying the usual DARVO strategy of accusing the other side of what they’re doing.

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is behavior typically used by sociopaths and – surprise! – often used by the left. In a breathtaking piece of meta-DARVO, the Wikipedia article on DARVO accuses Trump of engaging in DARVO. This after the left tried to oust him in a dictatorial anti-democratic coup, while accusing Trump of being dictatorial. That is, the Wikipedia article on DARVO actually engages in DARVO. We need to include accusations of DARVO as part of standard DARVO tactics.

Douglas’s book seems to be an attempt to prepare the battlespace for the left’s upcoming electoral fraud, and Trump’s calling out of the same and refusing to leave the White House until after an honest (or as close as we can get to honest) recount. Douglas, like Biden and other leftists, wants to seed people’s minds with the prior belief that Trump will be the dishonest player here.

One might ask leftists, “Why not just adopt political positions that the majority of people don’t find abhorrent, so your side has a non-trivial chance of winning?” But such questions are pointless with the left. Among other things, they can’t stop even if they wanted to because they’re caught up in a severe holiness spiral.

Aaronson:

“Suppose that, as this president’s deepest (and perhaps only) principle, he never backs down, never apologizes, never acknowledges any inconvenient fact, and never accepts the legitimacy of any contest that he loses”

An absolute BLAST of projection. The left lost in 2016 and is still trying to undo that election. They spread rank lies about the President and Russia. They involved a foreign intelligence operative (Christopher Steele) while accusing Trump of enlisting foreign intelligence services. They tried to remove him from office by impeachment, with the accusation that he’d committed a Ukrainian crime that his Democratic opponent Biden actually committed, having explicitly bragged about it on video.

Aaronson: “Suppose that, during the final presidential debate, he pointedly refuses to promise to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

For fuck’s sake! The left refused to accept the 2016 outcome. What is the point of such blatant lies, Aaronson? Do you really believe that no one remembers the “It was Russia!” lies and the attempt to oust Trump based on those lies? Jesus, how short-memoried do you think people are? Let’s review: The “Russia” story, based on works of fiction like the Steele fantasy (“dossier”) was used by the FBI, a rogue intelligence service, to try to overthrow the legitimately-elected government of the United States of America by means of fabricated data. It really is terrifying that they could attempt such treasonous insurrection and not one of them has been executed, or seems likely to be executed, for treason.

And after that attempted coup, which went on for years, Aaronson has the gall to yap about Trump possibly refusing “to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

“Douglas asks: is America’s Constitutional machinery up to a challenge that it’s never yet faced, of a president who accepts democracy itself as legitimate only when he wins?”

The mind boggles at the brazenness of the projection, gaslighting, and DARVO here.

“So suppose Trump has a slight edge on election night, Fox News calls the race for him, but then an avalanche of absentee or provisional ballots shift things in Biden’s favor over the following week. Can you imagine Trump or his supporters accepting the latter?”

Yeah, it’s funny how “those extra ballots we just found” always give the Democrat the victory, isn’t it? What a remarkable coincidence!

“Or suppose that, on election day, Russian hackers cut off electricity or voter registration databases in Philadelphia or Detroit, via computer systems that we know they already broke into and that remain exposed (!).”

Wow. It only takes Aaronson a couple of paragraphs to go from “ZOMG IT’S COMPLETELY FASCIST TO QUESTION AN ELECTION’S LEGITIMACY!” to “What if the election isn’t legitimate?!” Give leftists this: They’re certainly… mentally flexible.

“Trump has already told his followers that voting by mail is a scam to be fiercely opposed, never mind that he uses it himself.” Be serious. George W. Bush got out of jury duty when he was President, because the President’s time is too valuable to spend on that sort of thing. Presidents must be exempted from some rules.

“So again: imagine if mail-in ballots overturn what looked like a Trump win on election night.”

That is indeed a likely scenario, because the left does not accept democratic outcomes when they don’t win. It’s quite plausible that Trump will win by X votes spread across several key states, then in the next several days those states will just happen to “find” 1.2X votes for Biden. We all know this is a pretty likely outcome, which is of course exactly why Douglas and Aaronson are trying to pre-frame it as proving Trump’s tyranny, instead of the left’s tyranny.

“Douglas doesn’t mention, because it happened too recently, the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests [arson, murder, vandalism, looting]… But assuming the protests continue through the fall, they’ll of course give the Trumpists even more pretexts to meddle with the election, in the name of imposing ‘order.’”

“Pretexts,” unbelievable. “France nukes Boston: Watch out for rabid conservatives trying to use this as a pretext for war with France.”

“…Trump’s frequent glorifications of violence, and his heavily armed base.” Which side is burning down buildings and killing people?

Aaronson then says:

“Five years ago, thousands of woke activists shamed me for writing about my teenage experiences on this blog, a few even calling for an end to my career. Especially if those activists emerge victorious from a turbulent 2020—as I hope they will—I expect that they’ll come for me again.”

Scott Aaronson loves Big Brother. I would have thought the psychology of that was pure fiction, invented by Orwell for 1984, but I guess it’s real. Ugh, disgustingly cowardly. On the other hand, it takes out some of our enemies, who are basically announcing, “I’m a soft target!” to people who are itching to take them down. One of the satisfactions of the last few years has been watching the accelerating tendency of the left to eat its own.

Categories
Civil war Leftism Politics

What’s Going on with the Left?

Dumbass
“But summoning demons seemed like such a good idea!”

1. Partly – but only partly – there’s a unified plan: Attack Trump with a Xanatos Gambit; he’s either “weak and falling” or a “tyrannical dictator.” So far Trump has threaded this needle very well.

2. Another major factor is that the left’s thugs are out of control because they’re the kind of people who just like breaking stuff and beating people. Antifa is the obvious example here. They don’t much care who they attack, but the softer the target the better. Leftist mobs’ most recent victim as of this writing is a gay Democrat State Senator in Wisconsin. He was put in the hospital by a mob of thugs who he had thought, up to that moment, were “on his side.”

3. Another major factor is that they’re holiness spiraling.

4. What we haven’t seen yet, but may start to see soon, is the haute left fighting each other. Leftists know they can’t trust each other, so highly-positioned leftists will be very tempted to sort some factional stuff out now, in case they actually win against Trump. The internal power struggle has very high stakes, since lefties know they’ll kill each other for power, as they always have done for the last century. Indeed, they’ve been doing it since the French Revolution of the late 1700s, which is the origin of the saying “The Revolution eats its children.”

It all adds up to exactly what one would expect it to add up to: Increasing violence in general, and an amount of left-on-left violence in particular that must be surprising to someone who doesn’t know the history of the left.

Why not just work together? Remember, the entire point of leftism is betrayal of the broader group. And this is a personality type, not an ideology. Individual leftists don’t cooperate with broader leftism any more than they cooperate with the broader nation. (Leftist ideologies are just tacked-on epiphenomena that are invented to justify betrayal and smash-and-grab. No one believes the ideologies, least of all leftists.)

This is why leftism is most effective when it doesn’t require individual leftists to sacrifice for the leftist common goals. For example, leftist media narratives are pretty consistent across newspapers and networks because it doesn’t cost an individual leftist “journalist” anything to coordinate with other leftists.

Leftists are dangerous to everyone, but at least as dangerous to each other, especially once there is something big at stake like dictatorial power. Betrayers can’t work together.

If you’re an “elite” leftist, why not just exit the situation? Why not just quit politics, announce through channels to your fellow powerful leftists that you’re quitting politics, and move to another country to retire? That won’t work for at least two reasons:

(1) Your fellow leftists won’t believe that you’re quitting, because all leftists are liars and all leftists know that all leftists are liars. A false quitting announcement is exactly the sort of ruse a leftist would use to put his enemies off guard. In fact, Al Gore did exactly this the night of the 2000 presidential election, calling Bush to say he had conceded, while actually assembling his legal team to challenge the outcome while the Bush team was relaxing and celebrating.

(2) Moving to another country provides no safety, since whoever controls the US government reaches everywhere. You probably don’t know what happened to Leon Trotsky after the Soviet Revolution, because the left has decided it’s an inconvenient bit of history and memory-holed it. Short version: Maneuvered out of power by Stalin, Trotsky hopped from country to country, eventually ending up in Mexico. Stalin dispatched an assassin, who found Trotsky and killed him by chopping him through the skull with an ice axe.

Incidents like this are typical in 20th century leftist revolutions. Leftists are constantly riven by factionalism and killing each other. And leftists know it. You may not have known about Trotsky and similar incidents, but hard leftists study revolutions – they know. Their knowing it makes the situation even worse for them: Even if there’s a leftist who has no inclination to murder, he has to, pre-emptively, since he strongly suspects the other leftists will try to murder him. There is no honor among thieves… let alone murderers.

Look at this Reservoir Dogs photo from a previous post of mine:

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

If you’re in that situation and you know the other guy is a killer, you’d better shoot first.

I originally used that pic to illustrate the situation between Trump and the left. But this is also the situation powerful leftists now find themselves in with respect to each other.

(And Trump has been very good at resisting the left’s attempts to bait him into military action that they can use for propaganda purposes. That is, they are shooting at him, and have been for years, but he has been wearing a bullet-proof vest and dodging their bullets, as their attacks make their true nature obvious to more and more Americans.)

I do not think powerful leftists have started killing each other yet – if so, they’ve kept it out of the news – but they must be heading in that direction. (Update: How could I have forgotten Epstein?!) Antifa attacking the home of the leftist mayor of Olympia Washington, not to mention kicking the Democratic government of Seattle out of Seattle’s capitol area, are just a couple of recent examples. Already each “elite” leftist must be casting suspicious glances at other “elite” leftists around him, wondering who’s going to strike at whom first. “Will I be a target?” he wonders. And maybe starts thinking he’d better strike before he is stricken. Even as you read this, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Soros are wondering about each other…

Categories
Civil war Leftism Politics

Unstable Dynamics

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

I’ve gotten sucked back into reading the comments at Jim’s blog. It’s hard to resist since it’s the only community that uses evo psych, game theory, and holiness spirals as standard parts of their analytical toolkit.

Today, a commenter said something really out there:

Color Revolution

Some of you guys think we’ll just be teleported instantly from brick-throwing commies and shoe-stealing apes to an ancap paradise of right-wing militias… Even if that’s the endgame – and there’s no guarantee that it is – you’ll have a transitional period that lasts years, maybe decades… In between the inept police departments of today controlled by clown-world genuflecting city officials and the well-regulated militias of the idealist future, you’re apt to get 20 or 50 years of the Red Guard and Khmer Rouge.

20 to 50 years? What the hell!? Uh, no! Given something like the Khmer Rouge, normality is gone instantly and we’re at full-scale, no-one-denies-it civil war.

The current situation is incredibly unstable. It cannot last, for all kinds of reasons, for one thing because the left is desperate, for another thing because they can’t control their thugs, and principally because of the tactical advantage of the first strike.

Trump knows that he either beats them or he gets imprisoned and Epsteined. He can’t back down, not if he wants to live.

And the left won’t back down; that’s not part of the genetically-hard-wired leftist personality profile.

Not to mention the fact that the left’s plan to genocide the Europe-descended population is becoming more explicit all the time: Cf. the graffiti written by rioters, “Kill all white people.” The media isn’t reporting this, but it leaks out anyway. More and more white normies are coming to realize what the left has planned for them.

Normality, meaning politics by something other than widespread violence, is not even going to last 2 years. It would not surprise me to learn that two hours from now, something seismic happens, for good or ill. E.g., the bad guys seizing an Air Force bomber and dropping a bunker buster on the White House, or Trump rounding up the leftist half of the Supreme Court and putting them incommunicado in a holding cell somewhere.

Even low-level, “background noise” civil war is untenable now; these things tend to accelerate.

So let me reiterate my very first post on this blog, from 2016, which was simply a quote from Bertolt Brecht that leapt to mind as I looked at the storm clouds that even then were visible on the horizon:

“Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.”

Categories
Civil war Leftism Politics

Civil war: How we got here in 48 words

This is something I wrote a couple of weeks ago, before the Second Civil war had started. 48 words on how we got here:


1. The good guys will probably win if there’s an all-out civil war,

but

2. For that very reason the less insane bad guys, who know point 1, will try to prevent a civil war,

but

3. They can’t prevent a civil war because they’re caught up in a holiness spiral.

Categories
Civil war Leftism Politics

The Second Civil War has started

I’m calling it. Obviously the Second American Civil War started when the Deep State manufactured evidence to try to undo the Presidential election of 2016. However, some people keep talking about “when the civil war starts,” as if that’s still in the future.

Well, if you had any doubts, try this: Yesterday a member of the military command structure tried to order the National Guard out of D.C. in the face of danger from a violent mob. The blatantly obvious reason: To leave the President unprotected so that leftist assassins could kill him.

Barring that, so that the President would have to flee D.C., thus starting a “Trump’s regime is falling!” narrative.

That plan failed because it turns out the National Guard obeys the Commander in Chief, not someone below him.

As I was quite sure would happen, but still: Thank God.

But that doesn’t change the fact that they tried.

Anyone who now denies that the U.S. is in civil war is a loon.


BTW, I haven’t been posting the last few days not because there’s nothing to post about, obviously, but because every time I draft a post, it’s made obsolete by new events before I can freakin’ post it. The situation is changing so fast.

As Jim says: It happens slowly, then suddenly.

Random notes on all this, some important, some less so, but I want to get some thoughts down before the next big development hits:

(1) On Antifa strategy and tactics: https://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/antifa-strategy-and-tactics/

(2) LOL, AWESOME: https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1267887483989004288

Apparently some dude disguises himself as an Antifa type, then puts MAGA bumper stickers on actual Antifa thugs’ cars and their cars get vandalized as a result. If it’s not true, it’s a great idea.

(3) Imposter tries to pass himself off as a National Guard soldier. https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/06/02/report-lapd-arrests-man-armed-to-the-teeth-in-national-guard-uniform/
(As noted at the end of the article, the photo is not the guy who was arrested, who is one Gregory Wong.)

One guess is that this is part of a plan to create a false flag shooting of a “protester” by a purported National Guard soldier.

(4) May 2020 riots: Rioters attack the CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

LEFTISTS, YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE DEMONS YOU SUMMON.

Just accept that and suck it up.

And in Raleigh they destroy the offices of a local newspaper.

Whining newspaper employee: “I’m devastated. We are a progressive newspaper. Last night I was inside when the first brick was thrown” Awwww. Have fun eating the consequences of the hate mobs you leftists stir up. Also, maybe it’s time to let go of the bizarre delusion that if you just virtue signal hard enough, they won’t attack you. This is moronic. Did you really think that the rioters would pause before your offices, put down their bricks and matches, pull out their phones, Google your paper, see that you’re “progressive,” and leave you alone? OMG, you did think that, didn’t you? LOL.

The comments there are great, BTW; veritably 100% are saying, Enjoy your chickens coming home to roost. TONS of great comments. My current favorite: ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.

(5) Then the AFL-CIO building in D.C.:

VIDEOS: AFL-CIO Building in Washington DC Ransacked and Set on Fire

As is noted at that article, “The International Union Of Police Associations is an affiliate union,” but I imagine the rioters don’t know that. I didn’t. Also noted in the article by a witness:

Handful of people breaking glass at the AFL-CIO, some have run inside to continue beeaking [sic] things, as others in the crowd react:

“Aw, man, not the union!”
“No, stop! Unions are good!”

(6) This is hilarious. Pussy wimp coward gives thumbs up to rioters through his window, gets a rock thrown through it. Shouts “We’re on your side!” out the window, gets another rock thrown through it.

For the million bakijillionth time: APPEASING THE LEFT DOES NOT WORK.

(7) The broader, “normal” left is in a position where they must either embrace or disavow the rioters. They don’t want to embrace them because that will reduce their already-dim chances of winning in November. They don’t want to disavow them because they’re the left, and that’s just not what they do. Leftists never criticize other leftists, at least not ones more radical then themselves. Pas d’ennemis à gauche.

So they’re doing what leftists always do: Looking for a way to have their cake and eat it too. In this case that takes of form of saying, “It’s really all just white supremacists!” LOL. That way they can say “The rioters are bad” without having to disavow leftism or admit that it’s possible for leftists to ever be the bad guys or to Go Too Far, etc. Of course it’s retarded. No one is going to buy that this is “white supremacists” except people who were already going to vote left in November anyway. And probably not most of them. Everyone knows this is Antifa and other left-affiliated groups.

They are also shooting themselves in the foot, because you can’t say the rioters are justified, and also say they’re bad guys. Indeed, in the left-wing world view “white supremacists” are the worst of all possible bad guys. Watching them trying to argue “This is blacks taking righteous vengeance for 400 years of white supremacism” AND “This is a bunch of white supremacists” SIMULTANEOUSLY is hilarious.

(8) Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/02/media-falsely-claimed-violent-riots-were-peaceful-and-that-tear-gas-was-used-against-rioters/

They were not peaceful; that’s an outright lie. They were throwing bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. at police and trying to seize their weapons!

And there was no tear gas, just smoke bombs (which do not contain chemical irritants).

(It’s also risible to listen to them say, “Trump cleared people, including media, out of Lafayette Park” and “Trump’s walk through Lafayette Park was a photo op stunt.” Let’s shorten that: “Trump cleared the media away from his photo op.” Heh. I know lefties don’t care whether their rhetoric is internally consistent, but come on!)

(9) Note on the enemy’s mental state: The left is looking either bold or desperate the last couple of days. Not that it matters since our ability to win this civil war depends mostly on factors other than the enemy’s fantasies of omnipotence/terror of just punishment. But I find it interesting that desperation and boldness look the same. Both can be summed up by the thought, “I can’t really lose by trying.” If you’re bold the sense of it is, “I’m bullet-proof!” If you’re desperate the sense of it is, “I’ve got nothing to lose anyway, so why not.”

In this case I actually think it’s both: The enemy is emboldened by the fact that they can commit the most outrageous crimes, like a treasonous attempt to undo the election of 2016, without suffering any punishment… yet. But it’s also desperation because they know that if Trump consolidates power with another four years, that immunity won’t last.

Furthermore, the more judges he appoints, the harder it will be for the enemy in the future to carry out an unconstitutional, anti-democratic coup under color of law. They’ve spent too long pushing the notion that “law” means “what some judge says.” Ginsberg can’t last forever, and a firm majority of honest judges on the Supreme Court will make it impossible to carry out a coup say three years from now, with the camouflage of a Supreme Court blessing that it’s all actually legal.

(10) Jesse Kelly: https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1268643969258393602

You get there by playing the long game.

That’s how they [the left] got us. A thousand tiny wins and a thousand Republican concessions cause “That’s not the hill to die on.”

Look around you. The hills are gone.

Categories
Leftism Politics

The Left is Monolithic and Not Monolithic

backstab

One the one hand, the left is absolutely monolithic: They all always repeat the propaganda line their thought leaders tell them to repeat. E.g., halfway through Obama’s first term the party line became “There’s only one correct position on gay marriage: pro,” and all leftists started repeating this, with no admission that they’d ever thought otherwise. (If you point out this or similar examples they respond, with unblinking glibness, “Society has moved on.” Seriously, try it.)

On the other hand, the left is ravaged by factionalism, with trannies against feminists (lots of examples lately, for example this one), Hispanics against blacks, Jews against Muslims (recall the Ilhan Omar debacle), blacks against jews (e.g. Louis Farrakhan), gays against blacks, etc.

Let me expand on that last one: In 2005 a bunch of mostly white gay Harvard students condemned Jada Pinkett Smith, a straight black woman, for “heteronormativity”: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/meanwhilesensitizing-the-heteronormativists.html

Yes, with appropriate rhetorical footwork, you can be a white male Harvard student and still yell at a black woman for oppressing you.

From the NYT piece:

The latest brouhaha at Harvard University, home of the perpetually offended, is over a motivational speech telling women that they can have it all: career, marriage and children. The remarks, delivered by Jada Pinkett Smith on Feb. 26 at the Cultural Rhythms show organized by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, were deemed too heterosexual by some. Or, in politically correct newspeak, “heteronormative.”

Here’s a sample of what Pinkett Smith said, as recounted by The Harvard Crimson:

“Women, you can have it all – a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here…”

The Harvard Crimson reported that some members of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance had been offended by the speech and were calling for an apology from the foundation… So what was the offense? In the words of the alliance’s co-chair, Jordan Woods, “Some of the content was extremely heteronormative…”

Contemporary observers noted that the bulk of these lunatics were white.

Another example, which could be relevant in the 2020 Presidential election in the very unlikely event that Bootigieg becomes the Dem nominee, is the conventional wisdom that blacks and hispanics just aren’t going to turn out to vote for an openly homosexual man with a “husband.”

Categories
Miscellany Politics

Auto-Generated Wokeness!

Why waste time thinking up rhetoric to prove your wokeness and accuse people you dislike of thoughtcrime? Not only does thinking take time, it violates the entire spirit of social justice warriorhood.

Software to the rescue! The next time you’re getting your ass kicked by logic and facts, just use one of these convenient examples of PC rhetoric, randomly generated by the magic of computers!

The Gauss code is provided below as a public service. Here is a sample of its output:

Victims of Islamophobia are continually raped by frat boys.
Those whose experiences are denied have historically been devalued by heternormativity.
Homosexuals are hyper-offended by institutionalized sexism.
Wymyn are offended by institutionalized racism.
Lesbians are super-offended by fat-shaming. LOL, I’ll bet.
Those with alternative body types are continually raped by white men. They wish.
Transgendered persons are continually raped by those who deny their own privilege.
Victims of Islamophobia are silenced by institutionalized Islamophobia.
Victims of Islamophobia feel threatened by rape culture. Self-hating?
Homosexuals feel unsafe in the presence of frat boys. Believe me, homosexuals, you have nothing to worry about.
Lesbians are victims of genocide perpetrated by self-hatred caused by the broader culture.
People of color are hyper-offended by rape culture.
Homosexuals have historically been devalued by a culture that portrays heterosexuality as ‘normal’. This one actually “makes sense,” to the extent that any SJW rhetoric makes sense.
People of color are silenced by homophobia.
People whose voices have been silenced feel threatened by rape culture.
Transgendered persons are ultra-offended by fat-shaming.
Victims are continually raped by rape culture.
Those whose experiences are denied are triggered by self-hatred caused by the broader culture. This is a great all-purpose piece of SJW rhetoric. Just copy and paste into any comment thread involving identity politics of any sort!
Oppressed minorities are mega-offended by racists.
Victims of Islamophobia are mega-offended by heternormativity. Not really, no.
Victims feel unsafe in the presence of fat-shaming.
Transgendered persons are victims of genocide perpetrated by incursions into their safe spaces.
Wymyn are victims of genocide perpetrated by exclusionary rhetoric.
Homosexuals feel unsafe in the presence of racism.
People of color are super-offended by those who deny their own privilege.
Those with alternative body types are triggered by transphobes.
People whose voices have been silenced are continually raped by exclusionary rhetoric. Another all-purpose one.
Wymyn are ultra-offended by homophobia.

GAUSS CODE:

To use this you must have Gauss, obviously, and you must do a global find and replace to replace each “(lessthan)” with the mathematical symbol for less than. I couldn’t include that symbol here because the html will interpret it as an attempt to open an html tag.

new;
output file=c:\randomPC.out reset;
cls;

maxval=2;

i=1;
do while i(lessthan)maxval;

def=rndu(1,1); @ Generate a random number. @
h=def*1.2;

if h(lessthan)0.1;
“Wymyn”;
abc=9;
elseif h(lessthan)0.2;
“People of color”;
abc=19;
elseif h(lessthan)0.3;
“Lesbians”;
abc=12;
elseif h(lessthan)0.4;
“Historically oppressed groups”;
abc=33;
elseif h(lessthan)0.5;
“Oppressed minorities”;
abc=24;
elseif h(lessthan)0.6;
“People whose voices have been silenced”;
abc=42;
elseif h(lessthan)0.7;
“Victims”;
abc=11;
elseif h(lessthan)0.8;
“Transgendered persons”;
abc=25;
elseif h(lessthan)0.9;
“Homosexuals”;
abc=15;
elseif h(lessthan)1;
“Victims of Islamophobia”;
abc=27;
elseif h(lessthan)1.1;
“Those with alternative body types”;
abc=37;
else;
“Those whose experiences are denied”;
abc=38;
endif;

locate(i,abc-2);

fex=rndu(1,1); @ Generate another random number. @
f=fex*14;

if f(lessthan)1;
“have always been oppressed by”;
qrs=33;
elseif f(lessthan)2;
“are silenced by”;
qrs=19;
elseif f(lessthan)3;
“feel unsafe in the presence of”;
qrs=34;
elseif f(lessthan)4;
“feel threatened by”;
qrs=22;
elseif f(lessthan)5;
“have historically been devalued by”;
qrs=38;
elseif f(lessthan)6;
“have had their culture appropriated by”;
qrs=42;
elseif f(lessthan)7;
“are victims of genocide perpetrated by”;
qrs=42;
elseif f(lessthan)8;
“are continually raped by”;
qrs=28;
elseif f(lessthan)9;
“are triggered by”;
qrs=20;
elseif f(lessthan)10;
“are offended by”;
qrs=19;
elseif f(lessthan)11;
“are super-offended by”;
qrs=25;
elseif f(lessthan)12;
“are hyper-offended by”;
qrs=25;
elseif f(lessthan)13;
“are ultra-offended by”;
qrs=25;
else;
“are mega-offended by”;
qrs=24;
endif;

locate(i,abc+qrs-5);

he=rndu(1,1); @ Generate another random number. @
hf=he*2.4;

if hf(lessthan)0.1;
s4= “white men.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.2;
s4= “the heteropatriarchy.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.3;
s4= “a culture of silence.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.4;
s4= “rape culture.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.5;
s4= “heternormativity.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.6;
s4= “religious bigotry.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.7;
s4= “misogyny.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.8;
s4= “racism.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)0.9;
s4= “institutionalized racism.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1;
s4= “institutionalized sexism.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.1;
s4= “denial of their Title IX rights.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.2;
s4= “institutionalized Islamophobia.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.3;
s4= “homophobia.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.4;
s4= “transphobes.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.5;
s4= “angry white men.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.6;
s4= “a culture that portrays heterosexuality as ‘normal’.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.7;
s4= “fat-shaming.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.8;
s4= “racists.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)1.9;
s4= “those who deny their own privilege.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)2;
s4= “mansplaining.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)2.1;
s4= “exclusionary rhetoric.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)2.2;
s4= “incursions into their safe spaces.”;
elseif hf(lessthan)2.3;
s4= “frat boys.”;
else;
s4= “self-hatred caused by the broader culture.”;
endif;

s4;

i=i+1;
endo;

Categories
Leftism Politics

Holiness Spirals and Wars of Attrition

A crucial concept in understanding our current political situation is holiness spiral. It may be the single most important concept.

A holiness spiral is equivalent, in terms of game theory, to a war of attrition. I know what you’re thinking: “Sure, Neuro, wars of attrition are interesting, but what about all-pay auctions and patent races? Is a holiness spiral game theoretically isomorphic to those also?”

You’re in luck; the answer is Yes, because they are winner-take-all contests.

AttritionWar

Why does that matter? Because once you’re invested in a winner-take-all contest, it is actually rational, in a certain sense, for you to keep putting resources into winning the contest even after the value of winning is lower than the value of the total resources you’ve put into it. No, I’m not crazy; this is well-known in game theory.

A classic example is the “dollar auction.” This can be an auction in which all bidders must pay their bids even if they don’t win (all-pay) or it can be such that only the two highest bidders pay their bids. Business schools have done experiments. A professor of business goes in front of his class and says, “Here’s a dollar bill. I’m going to auction it off. The rules: Highest bidder pays his bid and gets the dollar. Second-highest bidder pays his bid but doesn’t get anything. All lower bids pay nothing and get nothing.”

Some doofus bids a cent. Some other doofus bids 2 cents. And the idiocy has begun! Now that someone has bid 2, the guy who bid 1 is in the following position: If he doesn’t change his bid he loses 1 cent. If he raises his bid to 3 cents he wins the dollar and pays 3 cents, for a net gain of 97 cents. OK, so they’ll bid until one of them has bid 99 cents, then they’ll stop, right?

Nope. Say the bids stand at 98 cents and 99 cents. The guy who bid 98 loses 98 cents if he stands pat. If he bids a dollar he wins and breaks even. So he does that.

OK, now the bidding is done, right?

Nnnnnnnnope.

The guy who currently has a bid of 99 cents loses 99 cents if he stands pat. If he raises his bid to $1.01, then he wins the dollar, for a net loss of 1 cent. That’s better than a net loss of 99 cents.

Hmm. And the other guy? If he stands pat he loses his dollar bid. If he raises his bid to $1.02, he wins the dollar, for a net loss of 2 cents. But that’s better than a net loss of a dollar.

You see where this is going (“To infinity and beyond!”). Not only in theory, but in actual experiments, people do in fact end up paying more than a dollar to win a dollar!

Key features:

• Your outcome depends on where you are relative to the other player. Just knowing your own bid doesn’t tell you whether you’ve won; you have to know the other guy’s bid as well.

• You bear costs whether you win or lose. This is the “all-pay” feature. An all-pay auction is an artificial situation, but consider a war of attrition: some of your soldiers are killed, etc., whether you win or lose. It really is all-pay. Same for patent races: Suppose you spend $0.9 billion on R&D trying to develop a new medicine worth $1 billion, but your competitor is on track to win by spending $1 billion. Win or lose, you pay the R&D costs. It would actually be better to plow another $0.2 billion in, so you’ll “win” the race by paying $1.1 billion.

• Action is sequential: You would never start by bidding $1.02 for a dollar, obviously. But once you’re invested, you have some losses you’d like to recover. So your investment in the contest keeps rising.

So… holiness spirals. If you’re new to this concept, the word “holiness” is ironic here; it means “leftist.” It probably started centuries ago with some totally innocent-sounding thing like, “Let’s expand women’s rights. Why shouldn’t women be allowed to work as secretaries outside the home?” Before you know it, it’s the official position of the Washington Post that no woman should ever go to prison, no matter what crime she commits.

And someone said, reasonably, “Why should it be illegal for men to wear women’s clothes and vice-versa?” (Used to be illegal, apparently.) A century later, male-to-female transvestites are in the women’s bathroom, and a security guard who tries to remove one from the ladies’ room is charged with assault.

What the hell happened? What happened is that some asshole started the political equivalent of an all-pay auction.

Let’s look at holiness spirals in light of the three features above. We want to understand this because that will help us to stop the fucking thing. And a holiness spiral is like an asset bubble: It either keeps advancing or it collapses. So if we stop it, we destroy it.

Holiness spirals:

• Your outcome depends on where you are relative to the other player(s). You can attack people less holy than you, but they can’t effectively attack you. If Fred is the holiest he can say to the mob, “Attack Steve; he’s not holy enough!” But Steve can’t say, “Attack Fred; he’s too holy!” That’s saying, “Attack Fred; he’s too good!” So everyone tries to out-holy everyone else.

• You bear costs whether you win or lose. Say your position is that a man should be allowed to use the ladies’ bathroom. If your policy wins, you (along with the rest of the society, by the way) pay the costs of an insane bathroom policy. But you pay those costs whether or not some other lunatic is saying, “Yeah, AND anyone who objects should be thrown into the hoosegow!” If that guy wins, then there are dudes in the women’s bathroom— as you advocated— plus dissenters are punished. Why did he outflank you to your left? Because while that made the society somewhat more insane, it made him personally safer, since now he is the holiest.

• Action is sequential: You would never start by saying men should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom. Indeed people didn’t start by saying that, historically. But your initial sane position that “There’s no need for laws to enforce gender clothing norms” got outflanked by someone who said something a little more pro-trans. That put you in a less holy position relative to him, so he could attack you, but you couldn’t counter-attack. So you outflanked him with something a little more in that direction. Thus the bidding war. It starts with you saying “I bid one cent for that dollar.” It ends with guards being charged with a crime if they try to keep a man out of the women’s bathroom. Well, that’s not actually where it ends. We’re not done with our holiness spiral yet.

Fighting these fucking disasters.

Above I wrote this: “Say your position is that a man should be allowed to use the ladies’ bathroom. If your policy wins, you (along with the rest of the society, by the way) pay the costs of an insane bathroom policy.”

THIS IS KEY. One of the crucial aspects of all this is that even sane, normal people pay the costs of having trannies in their bathrooms, and women (if the WaPo gets its way) being allowed to commit murder without punishment. (Well, they already are, but the WaPo wants this to be expanded beyond babies.) That means that— unlike the all-pay dollar auction— even people who aren’t participating in the holiness spiral have an incentive to stop it. This mattered e.g., on November 8, 2016 and will matter more as the holiness spiral becomes ever more extreme.

What specific actions can we take? First, we need to spread the awareness of the insanity as far and wide as possible. I do this in various corners of the Net, and everyone on the right should.

Also— and plainly this has already started— we need to ramp up our black knighting. N.B. not black knighting as in Monty Python’s hapless knight, but black knighting as in attacking our enemies under the guise of being holier enemies. For example, when an organization proudly announces on Twitter that it has hired a homosexual female, attack them for not hiring a minority or Muslim homosexual female. This sort of thing happens all the time now, and one can’t tell whether it’s the crazies getting crazier or good guys black knighting. The great thing is precisely that one can’t tell. That’s why it’s effective.

And what is the effect? Simple: It eliminates the safety, and therefore the benefit, of leftward movement. If my proudly announcing that I just hired a white lesbian immediately gets me attacked for not hiring a black lesbian, there’s no safety in that holiness-signaling move, so no reason to do it. Lately, if you just hire a straight white Christian male and don’t say anything, you’re less likely to be attacked by the hate mob than if you’re a leftist who proudly boasts about that lesbian hire. (Leftists seek vulnerability: They go after other leftists because they know leftists (1) care about fitting in with the lefty herd, and (2) must comply with the latest left-wing demand to keep their leftist customers/donors/whatever. In contrast, what will happen if they scream about Vox Day hiring a straight white male for his publishing company? He’ll just laugh at them. His customer base sure as hell isn’t SJWs.) The realization will spread that you might as well just hire the best person and keep quiet about it. That is becoming safer. And to the extent that it’s not safe, it’s not much less safe than trying to appease the SJW mob. And that destroys the incentives that propel the holiness spiral.

Black knighting must be done absolutely straight-faced. Don’t try this in a forum where they already know you’re not an SJW; you’ll just be dismissed as stirring up shit. But: New personality (dox-proof) in a forum where they don’t know you. We can all get to work black knighting.

The beautiful thing about black knighting is that the enemy has no defense against it. If they even try to defend, then you’re like, “Hey! They’re Anti-trans! Anti-wymyn! Anti-gay!” Etc., etc. They simply cannot deny that you’ve out-holied them. This isn’t theory; we’ve seen this happen increasingly in the last few years. E.g., the gay black author who was just SJW-shamed into pulling his book due to accusations of insufficient political correctness.

So, two things everybody on the right can do: Spread news to normies about the craziness. And join the black knighting movement, which is already well underway.