Category Archives: Race

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

Christian Ethno-Nationalism

Earlier this week, Anissimov, Avenging Red Hand, and Anti-Democracy Blog got into a Twitter discussion around Christians and ethno-nationalism. At one point, Mike asked about a write up on Christianity and ethno-nationalism, so, it looks like this is turning to race week here, as I’ll give some thoughts.

First, Mike is right in that Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but he uses it in the wrong sense. Christianity is universalist egalitarianism in a metaphysical sense, but not in a physical sense. It is universal in that the church is a universal brotherhood of all Christians; it is egalitarian in that all men will have to give an accounting before God and God will favour no nation.

But even metaphysically, the accounting is not equal. Each person is given a varying amount in life (in talents, wealth, ability, etc.) and will judged based on how he used those talents. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The Bible is clear that people are inherently unequal, and each will give an accounting before God, where his life and works will be tested based upon how he used what blessings he was given in life.

The story of the Tower of Babel indicates that God purposely made it so that all people were not of the same language and nation.

So, yes, it Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but metaphysically so, not physically so.

****

Next we come to racism.

Hating someone because of their race is simply non-Christian. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves and a neighbour is anyone you come across in need regardless of race or ethnicity, as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

While hatred is disallowed, truthful stereotypes of racial groups are accepted in the Bible. As St. Paul himself wrote, “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”

Non-truthful stereotypes, bearing false witness against your neighbour, is definitely unChristian, but “racism” consisting of truthful stereotypes and generalizations are acceptable to Christians (either that or you have to accept that the Word is sinful).

Having a love or preferring your own race and ethnicity is also acceptable. Again, we turn to Paul who writes, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

When it comes to close family, Paul is vehemently unmistakable, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Paul shows a strong natural affinity for his own people and demands a strong affinity for close family.

Jesus himself showed a natural affinity for his own people and was not concerned about racially insensitive remark.

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.”(Matthew 15:24-28 ESV)

The Christian is allowed, but not commanded, to commit the “racist” actions of truthful generalization and loving their own kin preferentially, and is commanded to preferentially care for his own relatives. The Christian is not allowed to hate his neighbour or commit evil against him because of his race or ethnicity.

****

I will address Galatians 3, as someone always brings that up whenever race or ethnicity is mentioned.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. (Galatians 3:23-29, 4:1-2 ESV)

What Paul is obviously referring to, when “neither Jew nor Greek” is not ripped entirely out of context for ideological purposes, is that all Christians are heirs to the promise of salvation given through faith. It is a metaphysical claim concerning our salvation and equality in Christ’s covenant. It is not a physical claim that all ethnic differences are now entirely meaningless and everybody is equal in every earthly way.

With that objection taken care of, we continue on.

****

The Israelite state of the Old Testament was very strongly ethno-religious. Inter-ethnic/religious marriage was forbidden, as was religious tolerance. Although, whether this was just religious or both religious and ethnic is debatable. Although later, it is confirmed that Jews marrying other races is a sin detestable before God. On the other hand, other inter-racial marriages such as Ruth and Boaz were viewed positively. People born of a forbidden union were forbidden from the Lord’s assembly.

As far as I know, there is no talk of inter-racial/inter-ethnic marriage in the New Testament.

So, as far as I can tell there is no real prohibition on miscegenation, but neither is there an encouragement of it.

****

The sojourner is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, usually positively. Sojourners, foreigners who lived among the Israelites, are not to be oppressed or wronged, are to be given fair justice, and they are sometimes lumped in with the poor. They are also to keep the same laws and be subject to the same punishments.

Sojourners were allowed to be treated differently in some ways. They could be charged interest and could be kept perpetually as slaves as well.

On the other hand, the state is to enforce the rule of law, people can not be allowed to violate the law and the law should not be violated.

So, any immigrants a nation does have should be treated well, judged fairly, and subject to the law, but a nation and its rulers has the right to create and enforce its own immigration laws.

****

Finally, we come to war. God is not a pacifist, as He often called for wars, quite often wars of extermination in the Old Testament. Jesus never condemned war as a concept either, He never really talked about the ethics of war at all but rather He seemed to like Roman soldiers. On the other hand, calls to peace in the general are common, so Christians can not just go declaring war for any reason. Most Christians accept some form of Just War theory derived from Biblical principles, but I’m not going too deep into that because it is tangential.

Mike specifically asked if Christians would kill their co-religious for their co-ethnics.

A Christian can righteously be a soldier and fight, even in a pagan or non-Christian army, as shown by the almost-always positive appearances of Roman soldiers in the New Testament or by David’s mercenary service for the Philistines. Assuming a just war, the Christian could easily fight for his co-ethnics, even if some on the other side may be Christian.  So Christians can fight for both Christian and non-Christian nations.

As for fighting for a non-Christian nation against a Christian nation, in David’s story Philistine leaders prevent him from having to choose between fighting for Philistine against Israel, or turning on Israel, and, as far as I remember, it is not dealt with elsewhere, so it is never made clear what the proper choice would be. I would say this would generally fall under just war theory. If the non-Christian nation has a just cause for war, there would be no problem.

Although, if the non-Christian nation did not have a just cause, I’m unsure. I doubt it would be held against the individual soldier as long as he fought honorably and justly, even if for an secular nation in an unjust war.

The question has less to do with who-whom and more is the cause just.

I’ll just say, that if NATO goes to war against Russia, I’ll probably fight only if I’m drafted.

****

Mike also mentioned meekness, I will simply direct him to Simon Grey who wrote on meekness recently. To summarize, meekness does not mean weakness, it means strength constrained and directed through discipline.

****

In sum, to the Christian, religion comes before ethnicity. Ethno-nationalism is not commanded, except possibly for the Israelites, but ethnicity and ethno-nationalism can still be part of a Christian worldview as long as they do not overtake religion. Any ethno-nationalism has to be out of love for your own, not hate of the other and even so, one can not be unjust to the other. Immigration is not commanded and a country has the right to make and enforce its own laws, but any immigrants allowed in have to be treated properly. As far as I know, miscegenation is generally not written of, except Israelites couldn’t marry non-Israelites. A Christian can fight for whomever they wish assuming the war is just. If it is not, then the question is less clear.

If I missed something, please tell me in the comments.

Black Enlightenment

It is well-documented that blacks commit more crime, score lower on tests measuring intelligence, and generally rank lower on most major indicators of life success in the US than the white majority. There is likely a strong genetic component to these differences. The new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, has recently brought racial genetics to the fore. (Book ordered and in the reading queue).

Some will some deny this reality, some will take this as an opportunity to hate,  and others use it to tout the moral superiority of whites or the moral inferiority of whites. All are wrong responses.

Instead, we should examine the situation so that we can sympathize with the other and address reality for the betterment of all.

The simple fact is blacks and whites evolved in different environments. Whites generally evolved in northern climates where cold winters and the resulting lack of foodstuffs was the gravest danger, blacks generally evolved in warm climates of plenty where the greatest dangers were the flora and fauna.

While I am not an expert on the issue, it stands to reason people in these differing environments would evolve differently. Foresight and preparation are the most important attributes for combating winter; quick reaction and physicality were the most important attributes for avoiding and combating dangerous animals. If we look at rates of success today, we see whites more successful in areas requiring planning and foresight, blacks more successful in areas involving reaction and physicality.

Blacks had/have a biology and culture adapted for their particular environment.

HBD has a series of posts out-breeding and manoralism indicating how long a process of evolution and culture (evolution and culture work together, influencing each other) it took for Europeans adapt to their civilizational environment. Even after centuries of adaptation whites still have difficulty making modernity work.

Blacks have not had this multi-century process of biological and cultural evolution adapting them towards our modern civilization, yet those living in Western countries have been thrown into an environment for which they are not fitted. Those blacks living in African countries have had the traditional cultures and environment they are adapted for destroyed by meddling whites bringing them civilization, “freedom”, and “democracy”, generally for the worse of blacks.

The proper response to blacks is not hate, it is not to take on a sense of arrogant supremacy, it is not to force blacks into a culture and environment for which they are not adapted, it is not to destroy the culture into which they have been forced, but rather it is to take compassion on them, recognize that they are not adapted for for Western civilization and stop trying to force it on them.

In Africa, whites should stop meddling in African affairs. They should end both humanitarian and military interventions and leave Africans to their traditional ways. We should stop trying to force our culture, our civilization, and our ideas on people for whom it was not created for. Those whites living in Africa should segregate themselves from blacks and vice versa, leaving each to pursue their own governance and culture.

In Western countries, we should recognize that whites and blacks are adapted to different cultures and environments and instead of forcing clashes between them to the detriment of both, we should allow blacks and whites to go their separate ways and pursue their own cultures (where they want to).

There are two primary ways in which this could be done:

Subsidiarity: This would allow local racial groups to each pursue the culture and society to which they were most adapted, while still maintaining current major political structures.

Patchwork: Blacks (or various groups of blacks) could be given a fair and proportional-to-population allotment of land in which to build their own independent nation free from the influence and meddling of whites.

Profaning the Cathedral’s Gods

Something interesting pointed out by Nydwracu on Twitter that I think deserves a bit more of a mention than a retweet.

Buzzfeed (webcache) has a listicle (ie: an intellectually absent presentation of stolen images) of facts about swearing on Twitter. The second and third charts have a list of offensive words. Such words as fuck, pussy, shit, ass, retard, and bitch are simply stated in the graph, but nigga and cunt are spelt n***a and c**t.

To make it more interesting, if you look at the original report both nigga and cunt are spelt out normally, which means that Buzzfeed specifically and purposefully went out of its way to censor those specific words.

You can tell what our society holds profane and holy by what words are unspeakable.

I am interested in how cunt gained so much greater exosemantic negativity than pussy or bitch. I would guess it’s because cunt is generally used against women exhibiting negative masculine behaviours, while pussy is generally used against men exhibiting negative feminine behaviours and bitch is generally used for either the same purposes as pussy or against women exhibiting negative feminine behaviours.

I guess its acceptable to call out effiminate men and misbehaving women, but not masculine women.

****

On a completely unrelated note, here’s something too big for tomorrow’s Lightning Round or Twitter, but not worth its own post. I ended up at the race realism page on something grossly mistitled RationalWiki (thanks, HBD Chick) and found this far too amusing not to point out

Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others. This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be cultural bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped.

It isn’t often someone so thoroughly destroys their own argument within three sentences. Thank you RationalWiki, you amused me for a minute.

For those who don’t see it, intelligence (measured through IQ) /= social intelligence.

To Mark Shea and Commenters

Mark Shea derides Dark Enlightenment with a bit of snark and sarcasm.

As socially maladjusted jerks always do, they trumpet their moral repulsiveness as a mark of “courage” and declare anybody who holds to actual Christian beliefs about the moral evils of racism are part of something called “The Cathedral” (an amorphous bogeyman compact of designated enemies critical of racialism).

I would like to point out the morally repulsive words of a few socially maladjusted jerks:

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie; my conscience joins with the holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh. They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith,instead of paying attention to Jewish myths and regulations of people who have repudiated the truth.

When will Mark Shea and his followers rise up and condemn this evil? How dare these people love their own race and call other races dogs and liars.

****

Also, some of his commenters have commented on the evils of autocracy. I would like to point out the evil words of these same evil people on autocracy:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.” They brought one to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.” So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him.

When will Mark Shea and his commenters condemn these evil authoritarians?

****

I left a comment simply posting the Bible verse locations, then a sarcastic comment along the lines of: “How dare that that wicked, wicked Jesus and infernal Paul say those things?”

It seems either the Bible or sarcasm are not allowed there. Given that half of Mark’s post was sarcasm and/or snark, I’ll guess the former.

The Real Meaning of Zimmerman

There is a subtext to the Zimmerman controversy that I have yet to see fully explored, but is probably the most important aspect of the trial.

Steve Roney (h/t: SDA) almost touches upon it, but it gets lost in his larger argument that Zimmerman was a working-class man acting uppity:

Of course, this is more or less what the police would do; and it is obviously not a hanging offence when they do it. The problem is that Zimmerman, though in fact legally entitled to do this, was not formally qualified. He was acting above his station, in the minds of the professional elite, including “professional” journalists.

One can see how this would ring all kinds of bells, if subconsciously, in the typical newsroom. What professional group is more threatened by citizen volunteerism these days than the media? Zimmerman and those like him are to them an existential threat. It was in their vital interests to take him down by whatever means necessary.

While Rebel University touches upon the fringes of the issue:

By suing the HOA and winning this settlement, Martin’s parents have helped ensure that the crime rates go up in their own community, since other HOAs will learn from this and determine that having a neighborhood watch is an unaffordable risk. Having a neighborhood watch guarantees that there will be confrontation between the watchers and the “suspicious people”.  That creates the possibility that the watchers will be attacked by the “suspicious people” and that creates the possibility that some of the watchers will defend themselves with lethal force.  It is unavoidable.  The HOA lawyers will determine that having any sort of neighborhood watch is unaffordable.

If you’ve been following the Zimmerman trial even slightly, you’ve probably seen the accusation that he was acting like a ‘wannabe rent-a-cop’ or something similar a number of times, due to his involvement in his local neighbourhood watch. As The Crimson Reach stated, the entire premise of the moral outrage against Zimmerman was due to the fact that “Zimmerman found Martin suspicious, followed him in his car, called it in, got out of his car.”

This is what the left finds offensive. This is what the Cathedral finds offensive. This kind of behaviour is what the Cathedral is trying to eliminate through Zimmerman’s show trial.

They do not want you to get out of the car.

Zimmerman did.

****

If we look at the history of Zimmerman, he was a model citizen with a minor black mark or two from his youth:

At the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice. In one of his interviews with police he stated his goal was to become a judge.

In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty “disgusting” and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.

From January 1, 2011 through February 26, 2012, police were called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times. During the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men’s race without first being asked by the dispatcher. Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin’s death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.

In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program’s coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.

Zimmerman was a normal person who cared about his community and acted to protect it. He voluntarily took on the mantle to watch his neighbourhood for suspicious activity and to stand up against police corruption.

George Zimmerman worked to build organic community. Any normal person would be thrilled to have a neighbour like Zimmerman keeping an eye out on things.

That is why he was made an example of.

****

In this particular case, he saw this suspicious-looking individual in his neighbourhood after a period of break-ins and other crimes. Like a concerned citizen who cared about his community, he reported the incident to police, then followed to keep a look out on the suspicious individual.

That was his crime. He cared about his community enough to try to keep it safe. He got out of the car.

And that is the whole point of this fiasco. It is the whole reason they rage against “stand your ground”. It’s the whole reason they fight gun freedom.

The Cathedral does not want you to get out of the car. The Cathedral does not want you to protect yourself or your community. The Cathedral does not want you to be able to trust your neighbours.

If you see Kitty Genovese, the Cathedral wants you to walk past. If you see a crime being committed against someone else, the Cathedral wants you to ignore it. If you see a suspicious person in your neighbourhood, the Cathedral wants you to ignore him.

Why?

So your neigbourhood loses social capital. So you can not trust your neighbours to watch out for you and your home. So you are forced to rely on the police and the state for safety rather than your neighbours.

They want you to destroy your trust in your neighbours and your local community so you become dependent on the state for security.

The Cathedral can not simply outlaw organic community-building and looking-out for your neighbours because that would enrage too many and would show their hand, which depends, in a large way, on being subtle. But someone died in this case in a possibly questionable manner, so the Cathedral had an opportunity to make an example. Zimmerman was the example.

Zimmerman was persecuted by the state for the purpose of making you think twice about helping your neighbour.

If I see someone suspicious in my neighbourhood and think of keeping an eye out on him? I remember Zimmerman: maybe I shouldn’t, it could escalate and I could become the next 2-minute hate target.

I hear what might be a cry for distress? Not my problem, it’s probably nothing and even if I intervene I could become the next Zimmerman.

I see someone rooting around in my neighbour’s backyard? If I intervene I could be the next Zimmerman.

Then, once everyone’s to afraid to intervene, out come the Kitty Genovese stories. I cried for help, why did nobody came to my aid? Someone robbed my house in broad daylight, why did no one intervene? A dozen people saw me being mugged, why did no one help me? Crime and drugs are rampant in my neighbourhood, why is nothing being done? This is the tenth time my garage has been tagged and my garbage overturned, why are my neighbours doing this to me?

The inevitable conclusion, I can’t trust my neighbours. I’m not safe in my neighbourhood.

Whatever the useful idiots might parrot, that is the whole purpose of this farce.

They want you to question yourself when you hear someone in trouble. Eventually, when enough people question themselves and do not intervene because they do not want to go risk a year-long trial, death threats, and public opprobrium, community trust collapses, because nobody is intervening to keep neighbourhoods safe.

Eventually, organic community dies, and the police and the state can step in.

The long march progresses.

You can’t trust your neighbours, but you can trust us. We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

Why Would Any Self-Respecting Male be an Ally?

Trigger Warning: Some mansplaining goin’ down here.

A couple weeks back, I read Occupy Misandry (h/t: Mojo). It’s about one guy’s experiences at the Occupy Wall Street kerfluffle. He was your typical left-wing rage against the machine type, who describes himself as a “one-time Marxist feminist”. Here’s his experience:

The progressive stack technique is a something that compels the rotationally appointed stack-keeper to move people forward (or backward) on the speaker list depending on several criteria – chiefly, whether or not you were deemed to belong to a minority group or, conversely, whether you were apprehended as being part of the dominating class. It was there and then that I was duly informed that, as a white heterosexual male, I was a member of this dominating privileged echelon and that if I wanted to address the assembly, I may have to forgo my place in the line a myriad of times, in order to let others, who have been ‘traditionally denied a voice,’ to scoot in ahead of me. Women (surprise, surprise!) were always escorted to the front of the queue because, although they were not a minority per se, they were ausländers – outliers in that political hinterland beyond the perimeter fence of the big, bad encampment of domination.

This was not the first time I had ever had my ostensible privilege stare me in the face – but this time it felt a little different: it was suddenly right the fuck up in my face. Being a one-time Marxist feminist, this perennial charge of patriarchal privilege was bitter medicine, yet one that I felt compelled to imbibe. I had been holding my nose and swallowing this tincture, ever since the mid 1980’s. It seemed a small price to pay for trying to make the world a fairer place for all. And like most medicine, you tend to ignore the rancid taste because you are led to believe it is good for you, that it is curative.

This blatant discrimination from those supposedly opposed to it, unsurprisingly angered our soon-to-be MRA. Another little incident cements this, and he becomes disillusioned with left-wing shibboleths (welcome to the club). He became an MRA.

My immediate advice to him is to dig further. The far left may be particularly repellent in their lies, but even the “centrist” and “conservative” progressivism that dominates modern society are the same pill with a lighter blue hue. The MRA still buys into the dominant progressivist paradigm.

But that’s not my point today, my point today is simply to ask, rather rhetorically, what possesses a man to sacrifice himself to become an “ally” in the first place?

****

Sidenote: In left-wing sociological terminology, majority and minority are not numerative descriptors, it doesn’t matter which group there is more of or less of. It is a descriptor of power, whichever group is the most dominant (according to left-wing ideology) is the majority. For example, even though whites have only made up 10-20% of South Africans over the last few decades, they would be the “majority” simply because whites are dominant. So women, despite being half the population, would be a “minority” in sociological newspeak.

****

First, the term ally. An ally is someone who supports the political activism of the grievance industry that purports to represent a “minority” group but is not of that minority group. (It should be noted, not every left-wing crusader agrees with the use of the term allies, while others think otherwise). Examples of allies could include a heterosexual who supports gay rights, a male who supports feminism, or a white person that supports affirmative action and “anti-racism”. John Scalzi, Tim Wise, and Hugo Schwyzer are a few allies those of the manosphere may be more familiar with (although, I do not know if they would self-describe thus). People in the manosphere would likely refer to them as manginas.

Anyway, why would any male with any amount of self-respect decide to become an ally to the grievance industries which hate and disrespect them so?

The examples of left-wing  disrespect and callousness for their allies abound. There’s a newborn MRA up there. There’s Hugo Shwyzer getting thrown under a bus, which happened after he threw the founder of the Good Men project under the bus. There are other examples, but even more convincing is the general undertone of disrespect leftists grievance groups, especially feminists, have for their allies. The amount of intense anger feminists display towards those trying to be their allies is crazy. Even the male allies get in on making demands males must follow.

Let’s say you’re sympathetic and want to learn how to be an ally or be a better one. Nope, educate yourself; no cookie for you.

****

So people don’t think I’m cherry-picking certain posts or extremists, this kind of demanding, angry, condescending is steeped throughout the grievance industry; it even forms the very basis of a lot of their language.

I didn’t just use the phrase “no cookie for you”, the cookie concept is a part of the language. It’s used to mock men who try to get on activists’ good side by buying into their frame. (Although, from my understanding, it’s become somewhat more positive on occasion.  The condescension of the concept is (or at least should be) humiliating for those who seek or receive them. Now, I think men who suck up to left-wing activists deserve mockery and humiliation, but they’re not trying to be my ally.

Other concepts major concepts among feminists also reek of condescension and humiliation of their supposed allies.

Check your privilege – When an ally starts talking from a position of “privilege”, this is used to get them to rethink their privilege. Essentially, it’s used a weapon for silencing those whose opinions don’t matter as much (ie. anyone not in the victim group).  Even some feminists think that it’s overused as a silencing tactic.

(Man)splaining – When a “privileged” person tries to explain something to a “non-privileged” person. Essentially, as “Michael Hawkins” learned in the comments here, mansplaining is whenever a man tries to debate with a feminist. Remember, a feminist knows everything, and trying to be helpful or having your own opinion is sexist. (Hint: Never help a feminist).

Gaslighting – Gaslighting was actually a respectable word used in psychology used for when sociopaths abused someone into believing unreality (see: public education). Feminists got hold of the concept and now gaslighting means anytime you point out to a women she is getting overemotional or anytime a women gets offended and you argue there’s no need to be. Remember, feminists never personalize, never get overly emotional, and never overreact. So, if you criticize a women for threatening suicide because you did not buy her a coke, you’re gaslighting.

Pretty much, all of these are used to silence, intimidate, and marginalize the “privileged” who dare interact with a feminist.

****

Of course, evil patriarchs like me don’t care and aren’t silenced. If logic, self-control, and reason are considered mansplaining and gaslighting, then I’ll cop to both. And, no, I won’t check my privilege and don’t care in the least about their cookies. (I only want cookies made out of love by someone feminine or mass-produced in a factory engineered, designed, and built by men).

Nope, those of us who think feminism is a load of crap, aren’t effected or silenced.

So who are marginalized?

Allies.

Those weak liberal suck-ups who try to get on feminists’ good side (good luck, you have a 1/360 chance). Those are the ones whose voices are silenced. Those are the ones are ostracized by those they try to please the unpleaseable.

They’re the ones who want the cookie, so they’re the ones who’ll try to earn it and will be disappointed when they realize they’re mansplaining out of their privilege and therefore, their opinion is worthless.

Some will realize this, like our newfound ally up there, but others, the manginas of the manginas, will continue to try to “check their privilege” and like good little doggies beg for their cookies.

But why?

Why would any man with even an ounce of self-respect put up this?

Why would any man accept being constantly condescended to and humiliated?

What do they get out of it?

Is it worth it?

What could possibly possess a man to prostrate himself before feminists and hand them his balls?