Friday, May 11, 2018

- The True Handmaid's Tale

If you aren't watching "A Handmaid's Tale" because you think it's just propaganda or a collection of idiotic liberal tropes about the brutality of the Patriarchy taken to extremes, then you're missing some really great story telling. Just because liberals take all the wrong lessons from it doesn't mean we have to. Here are some basic guidelines to remember if you're capable of having an open mind about it.

1. Only women could ever treat other women so horribly. I believe that if only 1% of women were capable of having children, a society led exclusively by men would hold parades in their honor. Statues would be erected. Men already think the creation of life is a kind of magic anyway. Only the envy and resentment of infertile women could so devalue them.

2. The real lesson here is about faith in an ideology that categorizes by groups. In the story it's presented with a semi-christian theme, but more than anything else in 21st century America it represents the ideological dedication to anti-racism. You can't really make christianity work the way the story depicts it without leaving out big parts of it, but anti-racism suffers from no such need for selective memory.

3. Totalitarianism is brutal. History confirms this. All the true totalitarians I see every day are on the left not the right. Christians are the least totalitarian people I know.

4. Severing the natural relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, so that the state can assume a role in the relationship has long been a central theme of the Progressive movement. I see no reason why in the circumstances depicted in A Handmaid's Tale' that they wouldn't choose to sever the relationship between the brith mother and the child, before the child is born. It seems a natural fit for them.

Just keep these four things in mind while you watch the show, and it you'll be treated to an compelling example of what's coming down the pipe if the Social Justice Warriors are ever given 'real' power. Imagine slightly different victims and slightly different villains, with a different theological faith in the necessity and purity of their own actions, and you'll be treated to some excellent film making.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

- She's So Ronery

This DailyMail piece reminds me of that Classic Kim Jong Il performance in "Team America World Police". It's a story about how women of all ages feel "So Ronery" now:

The strongest bonds they create with other people their own age tend to be forged via the internet — they shop, talk and compare themselves to one another online, meaning someone with confidence issues can easily end up spending every moment outside of work shut away in their room without anyone noticing.

As for dating, Becky has become so used to spending time on her own that she admits she now fears intimacy.

Her last relationship was at university and broke down when they both graduated and got jobs in different parts of the country.

Her only prospect now of meeting someone is through ‘soulless’ dating apps, which only serve to make her feel yet more insecure and isolated.

By her own admission, she now gets the majority of her social interaction via Facebook and has internalized an unhealthy sense of inferiority because of the way she constantly compares her own lifestyle to that of other women her age.

Of course, it’s easy for me to see that she’s measuring her own happiness against the oh-so-perfect, carefully edited highlights of her peers’ day-to-day experiences.

Color me unsympathetic. As a cultural phenomenon, Social Media has increased the perceived gap between those with the most and those with the least across every spectrum. And it's added to all the negative sentiments that spring from that perceived inequality. So if you elect to live your life that way, you're getting what you deserve.

As an example, (and I recognize that I may not be talking to a representative random sample here) but how many of you have actually spoken to someone you know is a Billionaire? How many of those Billionaires knew your name, knew what you do, and what your 'value' to them is - which is to say, you had a deeper exchange than the weather, or here's your dry cleaning sir? Or put a slightly different way, how many of you have had your opinion solicited by a Billionaire?

The answer, I would expect, is VERY VERY few of us. Billionaires are rare, and to know one personally to that degree is a rare thing. But we all see Billionaires on Facebook all the time. On Facebook we can all envy their private jets, their supermodel girlfriends, and their expensive and fashionable homes and cars. So if that's how you connect to the world, then you deserve to experience that envy.

In "Team America World Police" we see Kim strolling past the skeletons and chained prisoners complaining about how no one can identify with his plight. The article above reads the same way to me. Women in particular are drawn into the social media world because they have a strong biological urge to expand their social circle to include as many men as possible in order to get 'the best' guy they can.

The girl who spends her whole life in a Ukrainian Village may look like a supermodel (many seem to) and she'll end up married to the most successful goat herder in the village. But what's a goat herder compared to a successful Moscow businessman? She may be happy with the goat herder They may have tons of kids and full and happy life.

But American girls have rejected that. And Social Media means that whatever social circle they move in, even the 'best guys' in that circle probably pale in comparison to the Billionaires she can read about every day. So she rejects the people close to her, and chooses to live a 'virtual life' instead.

It may not really be about getting a billionaire per se. But I know few women who date on social who aren't shooting for slightly better version of a man than they would ordinarily be able to be dating otherwise. For them, it's the whole point of dating on social apps.

So they're just like Kim. They've behaved badly with a total lack of self awareness, and are getting what they deserve. They're Ronery in the same way he is.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

- One More Post (and then it might be a while)

Yesterday I was sitting in Washington Square Park with the GF, and a guy came by talking on his phone, and wearing a shirt that said "Homo Not Cuomo".

The shirt made me laugh and I pointed to him and said "Awesome shirt" and that's when the really funny thing happened.

He smiled, gave me a thumbs up and said loudly "Yeah! Go Nixon!"

I went into hysterics and the the hippies across from us who heard his statement recoiled in horror. Then I went positively apoplectic with laughter.

It's the little things that sustain you. I simply cannot wait for the Washington Square Park Pro-Nixon rallies. That it's a different Nixon won't matter at all to me.

- Vox vs. Peterson

I’ve received a comment on the infrequency of my posts as of late. I’m under an unbelievable workload and (even for me) incredible pressure. Managing a big book is a different kind of stress. That’s more like a “wholly Sh!t this ride is scary” kind of stress, but you know you'll get off the ride at about 4PM even if you have to get back on tomorrow. This is more of a “pull this out in spite of all the people around you who aren’t doing what they said they would, or you’ve proven yourself [insert really bad name here]” sort of pressure. It doesn't ever let up, even during the 3 or 4 hours a day that you choose to sleep. I'm coping.

And since I'm waiting for call, let me knock one out.

In the face of all the good stuff I missed in recent weeks, and with recognition that I probably only have time for one fast ‘first draft’ post, let me say something about the Vov-Day/Jordan Peterson dustup.

Vox is holding Peterson to a purity test. Peterson probably doesn’t know that Vox is even doing so. That’s the whole thing. Vox is a devoted Christian, and believes that a return to full fledged Christian ethics (among a number of other things) is inevitable. Peterson if pressed, might feel exactly the same way, but in the meantime he’s prepared to stick to his knitting of psychology, and trying to chart a path from the nihilistic present to the ‘faithful’ future, using terminology that today’s nihilists can’t so easily get around.

Beyond that, I don’t find Vox’s criticisms very persuasive.

When Vox attacks personally he ends up sounding insecure in my view. Though honestly I doubt that this is the case. As I’ve said, Vox is fighting a war. Anyone who deviates from his platform he see’s as an enemy, and he doesn’t much care who that includes. Rhetoric is is weapon, and he’s good at it. I doubt the insecurity I read in his writing is ‘real’ insecurity, it probably just comes off that way because he’s leaning into the punch.

Peterson on the other hand, is more worried about communicating a message accurately to a very large audience, in a period of time when many words have been redefined to mean something other than what they originally did. I doubt he knows Vox exists and if he does, I doubt he cares. He’s speaking to a different audience.

The two men though clearly define what I think of as the two basic forms of ‘communication style’. Remember, communication starts with the sender’s idea, then the message used to describe the idea, and the listener’s reframing of the words of the message, in order to get at the original idea. If you’ve ever had a conversation with a woman, they famously mis-interpret the words in order to reframe the message in the best possible light for themselves, and the original intended message be damned. A good communicator tries to see the original message under the words.

Vox is perfectly capable of doing so but isn't bothering, because he's fighting a war.

One of these men insists that all language and terminology be framed exclusively in his singular view. He has the strength of that framing as being the original (or at least recent historical) version of the meaning of those words. The other man is attempting to reframe his original idea in the language of the person they’re usually communicating with, in the interest of getting as much of the core message across as possible. But that leaves the original idea open to misunderstand for people who don’t want to cede that linguistic ground.

That’s clearly the gap. I don’t understand why Vox is weakening his arguments with all the ad-hominem, but I’m sure he has his reasons. I don’t think it’s done in error. Could be he’s speaking to another audience entirely, and I’m missing the original intent. He clearly isn't after Peterson's 'intended' meaning, and is just fisking him to death in order to retain his hold on the linguistic ground.

If forced to choose, I’d say I’m more disappointed in Vox than anything else. Peterson is clearly trying to make a baby step in a direction that is toward Vox’s ultimate goal. You can disagree with incrementalism (Vox clearly does, I have stated before that I do not) but doing so with so much ad-hominem doesn’t seem to help things. Those attacks on Petersons' character are purely personal and designed to hurt 'the man' not the message. But Vox isn’t knocking Peterson off his lofty perch anytime soon.

And his choice of linguistic weapon, in my opinion, slows down the process. Those that might represent an intellectual groundswell to undercut the weaknesses in Peterson’s arguments, won’t go near any idea so clearly expressed the way Vox has. Who cares if Vox Day thinks Jordan Peterson lacks ‘integrity’? It’s just not going to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway that’s my whole point. Put simply, I think Vox weakens himself by making good the enemy of the perfect in terms of argument. I know he knows better, so why he’s bothering is a mystery to me. Everyone's identity is a combination of individual and group, and the appropriate line between them has never been either clear nor stable. Vox doesn't say so either. He's only saying that where Peterson draws it, is 'wrong'.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

- The #MeToo End Game

Most men have long ago admitted that they need women. Sure, there are a few of us, teneeager mostly, who clin tha tthey an burn through willing women as a kind of sexual consumable. But most of us in the end (even Roosh V) come to the conclusion that a man needs a woman to feel like he has a complete life.

Well here's my prediction about the end game of the #metoo movement. In the end it will result in women finally admitting that they need to be dominated by men. I don't necessarily mean she need to be tied up all 50 shades style (though what you do in the comfort of our own home is your business). But what women need is a man strong enough to be the anchor of the home. The rock under Rome. He needs to be man enough to be the firm, strong building block of a family. That's what comes out of the #metoo movement. A return to traditional roles by other names and labels. That's my prediction.

Recorded here, 26th of April, 2018.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

- Peterson's Take On His Real Time Appearance

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore Peterson, but this one seems relevant to the comments:

Monday, April 23, 2018

- Jordan Peterson in the Land of Stupid



Apologies - the original video I posted had been blocked by HBO. The official release of the video is now in two segments.
First of all, Bill Maher's popularity has been flagging. A lot of his viewers are catching on to the fact that there is nothing "edgy" about being dull and predictable and surrounding yourself with dull and predictable guests that politically align with the target audience and the host.
Look at the panel on this episode with Jordan Peterson; in fact one witless ninny on the panel illustrates Peterson's points with her vapid Trump Derangement Syndrome on display.
Gov Jay Insley is a colossal buffoon.
What Maher does on every show is to demonstrate a sleight of hand (mind) that makes him appear to be morally and intellectually superior to his guests and his panel. Not hard to do with his usual selections... Maher also tries to contort Peterson's concepts to fit (or justify) leftist idiocy.
Bill Maher's best gig was his film "Religilous". That was his lone flash of brilliance. Now his political commentary boring and pretentious. To avoid the stupidity, you can view the video on youtube and skip through the pablum puking panel to get the substance of Peterson's visit.
At the 11:40 portion, after Peterson has made his point and the psychology of it quite clear, the nit-wit from CBS again proves his point!
Shortly thereafter, a liberal circle jerk ensues with about seven minutes of Trump derangement spewing. At 19:00 minutes or so, Peterson politely interjects.  
UPDATE - the Second video has Peterson interjecting at 1:54
Peterson makes the point that many millions or so Trump supporters are not taking kindly to the framing of them by the "resistance". Bill then goes on with the Liberal Lie... "Well if he were a normal Republican, things would be different..."
To quote Bill Maher: That's Bull-shit.
Peterson seizes the opportunity to pull the mask off the Left in their own dressing room by damning their preoccupation with identity politics.
After that it turns into another Liberal Circle-Jerk. They really don't get it.
Maher sort-of gets it, but these virtue signalling schlemiels are gone.