"It makes liberal-sense"

such followed i zone he whole bravo womans television bravo
Liberalism, according to liberals
Sarah Hoyt, the Evil Legion of Evil's resident Beautiful But Evil Space Princess, had some most amusing remarks to make about just why it is that liberals are so blind to realities staring them right in the eyes in the context of the ongoing and evidently highly successful attempt to turn SJW heads into IEDs through the Sad Puppies campaign:
I was wrong. They can be that stupid. In fact, they can be that stupid with flares on and a little outboard motor to get to dumb as heck FASTER and with more style. 
Do these poor creatures get an ironioctomy at birth? Don’t they know “do it for the children” has been a joke phrase since the nineties? 
And do they honestly, in their heart of hearts think that all the other side writes is “adventure stories”? REALLY? Hell, the story I mentioned the other day, Tom Bailey is more of an introspective memoir than an adventure story. And has anyone who read my stories, particularly short stories, HONESTLY think all I do is “adventure stories”? (Oh, like Thirst or What She Left Behind, or Never Look Back, or….) 
And I realized what we’re facing is not just people who are stupid (though a few of them are. And it’s not made better by their thinking their political ideology makes them “smart”) or people who are crazy (though a lot of them are, particularly the ones who honestly think humans are not influenced by sex hormones int he way they think.) No, what we’re facing are the deliberately blind, the ones who put out their eyes so that they can avoid seeing “the wrong thing” and questioning received wisdom. 
This is one of the great sins. It is a sin that enables all other sins, too, because if the received wisdom demands you believe some people are not human, you can’t correct for it if you’ve deliberately blinded yourself to all expressions of humanity from those you are told are the enemy. 
And that is what we face. And that is what we fight. People who deliberately believe in lies. 
I was talking to my friend Bill Reader about “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love” and I told him my moral certainty that the story started as a gay short story (I have a vague idea that I might have published with Abyss and Apex [I’m reliably informed that I maligned Abyss and Apex, and the silly dino story came out in Apex. OTOH I still don’t remember if I was published in Abyss and Apex], maybe, unless they were the ones who sent me a rejection saying I clearly had never been in another country and was “a narrow minded pain” — I can’t remember. After 120 short story publications, they all run together. However I do know that my stories with gay protagonists, like Songs or Never Look Back got a lot of pushback and editors saying “if you just change it to” before someone published them as is. No, I don’t know why. There’s nothing shocking in these stories. But progressives imagine the rest of the country are homophobic troglodytes. It’s important for their self image. Which is part of the point I’m trying to make.) “Not because it makes more sense that way,” I told him. “But because liberals are convinced any gay man entering a rural bar will get beaten to death, even though the instances of exactly this occurrence are… let me see… I’m thinking… exactly zero percent a year.” And he said “No, I know what you mean. It makes liberal-sense. I’ve started calling this “para-logic.” I.e. the sense that they live in a parallel world, and if you buy the premises of that world, instead of your lying eyes, and believe that the rest of the country are frozen somewhere between the middle ages and the imaginary 1950s filled with Stepford Wives, then their stories and actions make perfect sense.
Not to steal Ms. Hoyt's thunder or anything, but Ronald Reagan put it rather more cuttingly back in 1964:
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
The Gipper was referring to the exact same problem with liberalism that the most talented Ms. Hoyt was pointing out in her blog post. The difference, of course, is that Ms. Hoyt attempted to do so by way of oblique references and hilarious GIFs, while then-Mr. Reagan had to make do merely with his superb powers of oratory.

What You Can't See CAN Hurt You

Monkey See, Monkey Do
He just read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism
The phenomenon in question here is ideology. It is perhaps the single most dangerous phenomenon on this Earth. And once you understand what ideology really means, you will understand why.

The dictionary definition of the word means, essentially, a body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. And once you see that definition, it should become immediately obvious exactly why ideology is so dangerous.

The problem with ideology is and has always been its basis in myth, doctrine, and belief. An ideology rarely proceeds axiomatically from rigourously tested first principles, explained through the most parsimonious logic possible. Instead, ideology must, in order to sustain itself, craft narratives and myths that are often utterly at odds with the daily reality of the world.

If done correctly, the result is the creation of a belief system so profound and so weighty that it is capable of acting as an anchor for a person's entire sense of self and being. To question that ideology would be to cut oneself adrift from the paradigm through which one views the world, thereby putting oneself completely at sea, without any frame of reference in a world that suddenly no longer makes the slightest bit of sense.

The derper deeper you go into an ideology, the more warped the world around you appears, and the less you are able to make sense of it through regular tools like empirical evidence, a priori deductive logic, inductive logic, and simple observation. To resolve the vast cognitive dissonance between the world you see and the world you are told to see, you have to invent narratives and myths to sustain your point of view, as Ms. Hoyt's friend so aptly points out.

And that is what makes ideology so dangerous. When you understand that ideology is not fact or reason, but is indeed the antithesis of these things, you will quickly come to understand just why it is so dangerous to human happiness. And you will also quickly understand how to defeat it.

"Not Listening! Not Listening!"

You have no idea how much fun it is to paint liberals as warped, stunted unwitting servants of all-consuming evil

Let me give you a very simple, very well-known example.

About 15 years back, a very liberal Harvard sociology [*snigger*... sorry, but I'm a mathematics major and I DO NOT consider "sociology" to be a real subject] social sciences professor by the name of Robert D. Putnam published a book called Bowling Alone, which pointed out, among other things, that while forced desegregation in the United States via the Civil Rights Act had greatly increased the number of people taking up social sports like bowling, the actual number of social leagues associated with those sports had undergone massive declines.

The basic result of his research was that more diversity equals less trust. This was a direct contradiction of a good thirty years' worth of progressive ideology that multiculturalism, plurality, and diversity are always and everywhere Good Things that Must Be Encouraged.

Dr. Putnam followed this up with a massive study in 2001 of some 30,000 people and some 40 cases nationwide that reinforced this point in a much more general set of situations. More diversity did indeed equal less trust; in fact, increased diversity frayed the bonds of social trust to such a degree that various ethnic and racial groups simply didn't want to have anything to do with each other.

Again, this is in direct contradiction to the kumbaya theories that the liberal ideology takes as gospel truth.

The study itself is pretty interesting. More interesting by far, though, is Dr. Putnam's reaction to his own data. He sat on his own conclusions for 6 years before he finally published it, even though he released the actual data early on. When he did publish his study, the "conclusion" section essentially consisted of a lot of finger-wagging lectures about the importance of "education" to furthering a multicultural society- even though HIS OWN DATA had controlled for this.

It is worth taking note of just how painful the stripping away of such pretty lies can be to liberals. The moment their carefully built house of lies shatters, they are exposed to such severe mental anguish that they tend to run screaming from it as fast as they can- or, worse, they double down and try to explain away the defective nature of their ideology through such severe contortions of logic and such selective interpretations of facts that one is left to wonder how they can tell up from down and black from white.

It is the same, incidentally, with Marxism in general. The greatest lie ever told by Karl Marx- among a very great many- was that his system of socialist thought was somehow "scientific". This is utter bunk. Marxism is entirely an a priori system, totally unscientific and totally incapable of empirical analysis, based on ridiculously unsupportable assumptions and with exactly zero predictive power. If it were truly scientific, it would have been thrown upon the trash-heap of history decades ago, and the suffering and misery of tens and hundreds of millions of people could have been avoided.

But it was not, and more than 150 million died because ideology could not accept any deviation from its worldview.

Tolerance Uber Alles!

Thread: 50,000 Rounds in Six Months: The HK P30
And you wonder why hippies are so damn annoying
Now at this point you might very well find yourself asking how I have any idea in the world of what the liberal ideology might be, given that I am one of those fire-breathing extremely right-wing paleolibertarian nut-jobs who thinks that the US Constitution is sacred writ and that the best possible defence against aliens, both illegal and extraterrestrial, is a properly sighted AR-15 fully loaded with hollow-points and equipped with a bayonet in the hands of every citizen in the country.

Thing is, though, I didn't start out that way. I got to this point after many years of careful examination of the various doctrines that I had been raised to believe throughout high school and university; when I realised that what I was told didn't match up with what I could see with my own two eyes, it quickly became obvious that ideology didn't work, and common sense did.

How do I know about this stuff? That comes down to the work of a chap named Kurt Hahn.

Mr. Hahn is revered among lib-progs for his vision of youth leadership in diverse communities pushing the world forward into greater peace, harmony, tolerance and understanding. (I'm paraphrasing somewhat, obviously.)

That kumbaya philosophy expresses itself today in the United World College movement. It just so happens that I attended one of the UWCs for my last two years of schooling.

Now at that point, I was a pretty cynical teenager, and I wasn't there to deal with any hippy-dippy nonsense about "getting involved" and "being a global citizen". I was there to finish high school and GTFO, and that was it, so I managed to avoid most of the worst of the brainwashing. Unfortunately, I was still just a teenager, which is a sub-species of human not always known for the ability to exercise discipline or good judgement.

That is where I absorbed the tremendously damaging ideologies of neo-Keynesian economics, of the "blue pill" when it came to women and relationships, and of the utterly counter-factual belief that MOAR SCHOOLING is always and everywhere a Good Thing.

It took me years to undo the damage. I'm still in the process of undoing the last of it. But I was lucky- I was able to figure a lot of this stuff out on my own.

Most liberals don't have a hope in Hell of figuring it out. They're just too wedded to their ideologies, and they'll never escape from them. And one day, very probably sooner rather than later, they will be destroyed by their ideologies, by the failures of their false gods.

The Red Pill as Anti-Ideology

The beauty of the Red Pill, or of rediscovering masculinity, or however you want to phrase such an awakening, is that suddenly the world around you makes sense again.

Suddenly, you really can judge people based on the content of their characters- because it doesn't matter whether they're straight, gay, bi, or whatever, as long as they are fundamentally decent individuals who leave you alone and don't interfere with you. And you recognise that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with simply wanting nothing to do with certain people, since you recognise a survival instinct for what it is. This is something that SJWs are simply incapable of understanding, because it conflicts so completely with their ideology, which ranks people according to skin colour, place of origin, and sexual orientation.

Suddenly, you see through the lies that government keeps telling you as it tries desperately to justify its hold over you and its power to rob you blind at will.

Suddenly, you see women for what they are- frail, fallible, in need of masculine strength and leadership. You may even grow cynical of them and weary of their presence, because you come to realise that, deep down, All Women Are Like That.

Suddenly, if you are fortunate enough to hear His voice, you see that God was there all along, by your side, trying to reach through the clouds of ignorance and folly that blinded you to His majesty and His compassion. And if you do a bit of reading and some research, you'll quickly come to realise that, when stripped of all the flighty rhetoric and ceremony, the Judaic and Christian faiths are derived rigourously from axioms that have stood the test of time and which continue to provide an unshakable moral foundation upon which Mankind can build.

Suddenly, you find that reading is once again a pleasure unto itself. No longer are you worried about whether a book has the "right message"; all you care about is whether the author can weave a great story.

And suddenly, you just don't give a damn what anyone else thinks of you. You see the people around you for what they are. You see them for the flawed creatures that we all are- capable of both great and terrible things, full of potential, yet hampered by our own ideologies.

It turns out that defeating ideology is really quite simple after all- it just isn't easy. All you have to do is keep pushing against it, keep hammering away at its inability to recognise the dangers created by its own reflexive refusal to see what is inconvenient and scary. Push hard enough, and every ideology fails and falls, leaving its followers to suffer in the wake of its passing.

Ideologies always fail because they always deny reality. Ultimately, that is how you defeat any ideology- you stand up to it, no matter how murderous it is, no matter how intimidating it tries to be. The one thing ideology cannot tolerate is resistance to its creeds- and if you resist hard enough, it, and not you, will be the first to break.


  1. That's the thing with diversity - if there is a diversity of IDEAS and approaches, with honest debate, you get a higher chance (as predicted by anti fragility/etc) of solving the problem more optimally. Ditto the "wisdom of crowds"

    This of course has nothing to do with testes, ovaries, or skin color (though all are markers of deeper traits which can influence things one way or another. Better or worse is always "for what?" - see disease resistance and genetic diseases by population/etc.)

    SJW's of course assume the latter is always a marker for the former, and are far worse than "conservatives" in believing certain character traits go with a culture, gender, or race (otherwise you're called oreo or gender traitor/etc...)

    Even then , for a possible solution to be trusted, there has to be some trust that the person is indeed 'in the same boat" - part of the culture by blood and childhood, or by willingly making hinself over (thus hazing/etc....) to join the social group, having paid a price to do so and earn some respect. Otherwise, the idea is suspect - in part because the skill or competence or knowledge level is not known, or the suspicion of ulterior motives,

    Sure, this sometimes means that outsiders get short shrift ( look at how often scientific revolutions came from outsiders to the profession, not blinded by the assumptions of what was possible), but then one should ask why Miami feels more foreign to some than canada.

    I'll give you a clue - it's not the spanish signs, or more people with darker skin.

    It's subtle, but always in your face.

    Sarah Hoyt once put it that in portuguese and other latin cultures, if there was not at least a token lock or fence, anything not nailed down was fair game. Very different from our background where you could leave your bike out in the front yard of most suburb and rural areas, or basketball, and expect to find it still there later.

    Go to miami. Look at the fences and gates - often enough even around the front door stoop so the paper can get tossed onto the front porch and still be inside a gated, secure area. Stores that in other, more northern cities would never check receipts for shoplifting, it's the norm there.

    In attitude and architecture, in corruption, and "I know a cousin" to a degree that even the mob up north doesn't, it's very different.

    And since it's tribal and familial, there is less trust. And it shows.


Post a Comment

Contact the Didact: mantlesapproach@gmail.com

Popular Posts