Friday, November 11, 2016

- Right Equals Might

So I’m reading about Obama’s ‘neutron bomb’ – the one he’s taken to the Democratic party which wiped out over a thousand Democrat legislators during his term. And I’m having one of those epiphany moments when things all seems very clear to me. I think it makes sense to jot down some of this obviousness however poorly phrased, so we all have a set of language to describe the whole mess.

American do not like to see themselves as victims, but the philosophy of the left requires victim culture. So too does Marxism, it’s philosophical parent. In order for those philosophies to gain in popularity, people need to have a level of faith in their own powerlessness. This is the great weakness of the left, that Donald Trump correctly saw, and all the polite political talking heads of the right did not.

I’ve seized on the Trump locker room talk pretty aggressively I know. And I’ll be honest, at first I wasn’t sure why. All I knew was that it struck a chord with me – filled a gap I knew in my bones that America was missing. Here was a man, talking about being a man; about being in control and in charge. About being so possessed of personal agency that even the rules of decorum were suspended for him. He was relishing that power that being a ‘real man’ gave him. He was celebrating the personal power that fame had wealth had provided.

I understood the importance of it right away, and not being particularly possessed of the sin of envy, I was happy to hear him say those things. I thought it was a good example of the kind of prize that awaits any man when you compete like a man and win like a man. And in that respect I was glad to hear his words publicly stated instead of in private.

What I didn’t quite realize at the time was that in itself it amounted to an argument about our culture. It was the perfect offset for all those wimpy little male feminists who decry their ‘privilege’ before speaking in public, and demand safe spaces for the girls. Here was the nation’s real “anti-feminist”, that was clear. At least it was if you saw Feminism not as a valid argument about equality, but as a brutal will to power argument of the female ‘losers’ in the sexual marketplace.

The Derb (quoting Steve Sailer) has said much about the “coalition of the fringes”. That’s the people at the very top of society, sprung from ivy league institutions more or less born to seize the reigns of power, and those that see themselves as utterly powerless – the losers and failures in every endeavor. Well the latter half of that group are the ones who advocated victim culture because it delivered power to their ‘allies’ at the top.

Academics who knew that they couldn’t actually compete in the private sector and defaulted to the secure life of tenure instead, all inwardly saw themselves as the latter, while they were able to describe themselves within their spheres of influence as the former. In their inner mental world they were utterly powerless because they knew they lacked the things it takes to compete in the private sector. But they believed that if they could just get enough people to think the way they do, they could make the hop into the ‘powerful’ class. Then THEY could be the ones in charge and making the rules.

So they openly advocated for victim culture - for investing the idea of being a victim with as much moral virtue as possible. And with their fervent advocacy in their limited areas of influence, the role of ‘victim’ has greatly expanded to include virtually everyone except heterosexual, white, males. This is the concept of intersectionality - the leveraging of one's 'victimhood' in one measure, to lend moral weight to one's arguments in another.

The chattering classes of the right saw this as simply more ‘crazy talk’ from the academics. But with an Academic in the Whitehouse, himself a black male of dubious masculinity and limited marketable skill (apart from making speeches), the idea took a firm hold in popular culture outside Academia as well. It got the support of the justice department, the law, and thanks to a compliant press and celebrity class, in other areas as well.

Political correctness and social justice are nothing more than the moat and barricade around victim culture. They defend the psychological principles necessary to promote the idea that failure is triumph, and to lose is the moral equivalent of a win. But they are all cultural arguments, not political. So the talking heads of the traditional right ignored them. They saw policy and politics as the battleground and they used their tool of reason to argue their positions in that 'downstream' sphere. They didn’t realize that the left had already moved upstream to “bigger game”. They were now fighting for the definition of morality, not politics.

Victim culture, social justice, and political correctness are all a single argument with their basis is the subjective emotional reasoning of the women who are biggest failures in the sexual marketplace. Even third wave feminism with all its baseless nonsense about ‘rape culture’ is a derivative argument rather than a root cause. It’s really “Failure” in and of itself that the left holds in the highest moral regard. It’s the contest itself that they are trying to destroy. The striving, the competition for achievement. The very idea that there are winners and losers. This is what the left has set its sights on. And with 8 years of Obama controlling the government and the press, and with the right unwilling to engage in an argument of culture rather than politics, they very nearly pulled it off.

You can’t oppose that kind of thinking with reason. You cannot reason someone who is hysterical back to reasonableness. That’s why the arguments of the NR crowd and the establishment right were failures at it. Because they treated the arguments as if they were real, when they were actually all imaginary. Like two people in a bad marriage, they talked past each other. The left wanted an emotional response, and the right gave them only the reason of political principle. The right won on arguments of policy, but were bowled over time and again, by the wave of moral outrage that flowed down to them from further upstream in culture.

Enter the Alt-Right. The Alt-right is utterly unpersuaded by subjective emotion and moral outrage. They think it’s unconnected from reality, which in fact it is. Uncomfortable facts are their bread and butter. Their arguments all spring from the facts and data, and how you feel about those facts is seen by them as ‘your problem’. They were willing to fight the culture war and made the right points. But they were excluded from the discussion because they were considered ‘too controversial”. Political correctness, which the establishment right embraced to some degree in the form of common courtesy, kept their arguments from being ‘allowed’. So with the megaphone held by the 'polite' conservatives who were all adequately constrained by political correctness, and the Alt-Right who could withstand the moral arguments but excluded from the broader discussion, the right ended up losing both the argument of emotion and the argument of fact.

Then came the candidacy of Donald Trump – the Anti-Feminist. He has never believed in failure. Like all men, he fails from time to time, but he doesn’t believe in it. To him, losing will NEVER be on par with winning, and he isn’t afraid to say so. Since he's had success, he doesn't feel political correctness should apply to him. He is unconstrained by it, and with his example the Overton window can finally change to empower the data driven arguments of the alt-right. We now have a leader who, for all his personal faults, is much more worried about winning than he ever will be about giving offense. And you can't succeed unless you look at the real problem - no matter how much it will 'offend' the offendable class. This unwillingness to concede the moral argument for victim culture makes him seem intensely dangerous to its advocates. So they make emotional arguments to try to reclaim the moral high ground. Trump is Hitler, and Trump runs the KKK aren't factual in any way. They are simply an expression of leftist moral outrage, which they see in Trump.

That moral lack is actually his best argument. And is the reason the devotees of victim culture have so seriously over-reacted to his election. They know that if political correctness and social justice can’t continue to be used to end the argument before it starts, their entire house of cards will finally fall and being a ‘victim’ will lose all its moral superiority. Failure will no longer be seen as proof or moral virtue. And that will leave them all right back where they started – as losers in the game of life who lacked the skills, ability, and courage to become winners. This is what the advocates of the left don't want to 'go back' to.

For a very long time now I’ve been arguing that we should be ridiculing the advocates of political correctness, social justice, and victim culture. I still firmly believe that. Our role as private citizens, is not to make the careful data driven arguments of the Sailer’s, Derbyshires, and Brimelow’s, but to provide the emotional support for them. We need to be the nation’s ‘shock troops’. We need to laugh in the face of those that support the victim narrative at every opportunity. We need to make them feel ‘triggered’ and then give them nowhere to take their triggering that won’t include further ridicule. We need to laugh in the face of the people who say it's racist to enforce one law for everyone. We need to let them know that most people see them as silly.

This is vitally important to the survival of the nation because the left still controls the press, academia, and the law. But there is no law against rudeness. There is no law against making the advocates of a visibly baseless and stupid philosophy feel stupid. There is no law against letting a little sunlight of reality creep into the very long shadows that victim culture, political correctness, and social justice will continue to cast in the Trump administration.

There is no need for actual violence when Feminists will happily tell you that a harsh word has the very same effect. There is no need to use force when their psychology is so fragile that they think simply disbelieving or ignoring them absent any evidence is the same as an assault. There is no need for hate, when simply to disagree with their view is considered a hate crime.

All we have to do is stop pretending that they have a valid point, and begin treating them as if they do not. Time and energy will fix the rest. We have all the thinkers we need to win this fight for western civilization. But if the Overton window is to move, it’s we who need to move it. We need to be the ones who make it OK to say things that the left can’t abide. And we do that by publicly laughing in their faces and ridiculing them, like they always should have been.

The fact that Obama was a 'neutron bomb' means we have the manpower. Those Democrat office holders have all lost their jobs because there are enough Americans out there who don't want to see themselves as victims. And we need to let others know that we reject the topsy turvy morality that makes losing into winning. That's the key to the Trumpening. We need to stop caring about the losers and start caring about winning again.

You don't have to have won, to want to win. You don't have to be the top of the heap to want to climb a little higher. It's not oppression of others to personally strive for more, or to be better at something than someone else. It isn't hateful to admire success and the personal agency that comes with it. Might doesn't make right, but in a virtuous world, being right, should (and will) lead to greater might. And there is nothing immoral about saying so.


Muzzlethemuz said...


Stephen Paul Foster said...

The Leftist intellectual-propagandists operate in their own meta-politically created world devoid of logic, facts and empirical reality. Just before the election Time ran an opinion piece by Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at Berkeley. It is truly an astonishing display of invincible resistance to reality. See: