Saturday, June 18, 2016

Preaching privilege one day, love and unity the next

Leftists can be more open about what they post to social media than those of us on the right. As I have quite a few leftist friends and relatives on my feed, I get to know what really interests them politically.

Generally, they are only interested in what happens in Australia and America. And their overwhelming interest lies with the idea of white male privilege. It is what I have come to call "shakedown politics". You spot something that white men have (e.g. greater representation on a board) and you roar mightily about white male privilege, because you see the chance to get something out of your activism (i.e. board places). But if 16 Yazidi women are brutally murdered by ISIS in the Middle East for refusing to become sex slaves, it doesn't even make it onto your radar.

What I noticed about leftist messaging in the run up to the Orlando massacre, was something like the following:

Day 1: All white men are privileged, give us their stuff.
Day 2: All white men are privileged, give us their stuff.
Day 3: All white men are privileged, give us their stuff.
Day 4: Muslim massacres 50 gay people at a nightclub.
Day 5: Rage at Christians, white men are just as bad as Muslim men or worse.
Day 6: Why can't we have love and unity?

Clearly, there is a blind spot in leftist politics here. They don't see that the envy/rage/hatred towards white men (ressentiment?) runs counter to calls for love and unity.

The hostility toward white men seems, if anything, to be picking up steam. You have to wonder where it will end. To give just one example, you might be aware of the sad event that occurred at a Disney resort in Florida where a young boy was taken by an alligator. A prominent white feminist from Chicago (apparently a corporate lawyer) responded by tweeting the following:

Not much love and unity on display in Brienne's comment.


  1. You won't get much compassion from a feminist. They're driven by pure hate. I suspect that much of the hatred comes from the fact that secretly they know that by trying to become men all they succeed in doing is becoming second-rate pretend men.

    If feminism works why is it that feminists are more hate-filled and more bitter and more miserable than ever?

    1. Well, that's a good question. The man-hating feminists that I'm aware of are very fortunate in their positions in society. They have well-paid, high status jobs. And yet the man-hating just seems to get worse.

    2. The man-haters are NEVER happy likely because they will NEVER be satisfied with what they have. If someone else -- especially a White man -- has something that they don't, then it's "UNFAIR!" and they scream to Big Daddy Government to take away what that someone else has and give it to them. If it doesn't happen then they scream, "I'm BEING OPPRESSED!" to their lackeys and toadies in the media.
      Read the fable of "The Fisherman and His Wife"; it explains a lot about female envy and greed, and where their envy and greed lead to...

    3. TRP, I agree that the word greed fits here. It is sometimes the individuals at the very top, the ones with the highest status jobs, who yell loudest about how males are privileged. It comes across as bizarre at times. I think of all the men working hard at very unglamorous jobs to support their families and then they are accused of being privileged by women who, objectively, have it better than anyone else has ever had it. The motto seems to be: the more you have the more you want. To add to how odd it all is, if it weren't for the willingness of those men to do the grungier kind of work, then the kind of jobs favoured by the feminist women wouldn't be there. The feminist women should really be saying: "hey, aren't we lucky that men have families to support, and they're willing to humbly work away at very ordinary jobs, so that we can have these more glamorous types of employment that gives us a platform and a trendy lifestyle". But they don't do this - instead they take men as the enemy to be raided.

    4. It is sometimes the individuals at the very top, the ones with the highest status jobs, who yell loudest about how males are privileged.

      It may be partly because when they get the high status jobs they don't actually achieve anything. How many spectacularly successful female entrepreneurs have there been? How many Nobel Prize-winning female physicists? Even in politics the failures (like Julia Gillard) outnumber the successes. Women can bully their way to the top but once they get there their actual achievements are negligible. So naturally when they fail they blame men.

      And when they get the high status jobs they discover that they're still unhappy because high status jobs don't provide any of the things that make women happy. So again they blame men.

      What this means is that the more feminism "succeeds" the more unhappy women will be and the more angry they will become.


  2. Equality is really a cover for envy.

    It is a way for the inferior to steal from the superior without appearing to do so, and therefore without having to admit or account for their inferiority.

    The superior NEVER demands equality with the inferior, it is always the other way around.

    Hence the liberals and SJW's never see equality as anything but a means to increase their status and get things by theft they could not otherwise obtain.

    People who urge you to “Follow the Money” never ask how thousands of leftist social activists earn a living.

    Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have never made a dime anywhere but in 'supporting' causes.

    And thus the shock when 'equality' isn't used to attacked the envied, but instead actually starts doing to THEM the only thing it ever does: destroy, coerce, and make ugly.

    1. Equality is really a cover for envy.

      It is a way for the inferior to steal from the superior without appearing to do so, and therefore without having to admit or account for their inferiority.

      With feminists it's not so much envy in any kind of material sense. It's an envy that goes much deeper. They can demand the right to be CEOs but they won't be effective CEOs. They can demand the right to be combat soldiers but they'll be ludicrously useless combat soldiers. They can demand the right to top academic jobs in the sciences but they won't do any valuable work in those fields.

      Feminists wants to turn women into men but they can only ever be second-rate men (just as a man could only ever be a second-rate woman).

      Feminists don't envy men their opportunities - they envy men their achievements.

  3. "Brienne of Snarth" is this tweeting, disordered female's takeoff on Brienne of Tarth, and "snark" (snide remark), a Game of Thrones chararcter, described as a "highborn lady who would rather be a knight".
    Her character is said to "shatter gender roles". A male writer discusses her relationship with a male character: {“The funny thing with those characters, it works both ways, if you want to reverse the genders,” he explained. “He can hold her, or she can hold him, because if you get those two characters together, you don’t know who would be the more masculine of the two of them. In some ways, I feel like the feminine part of that relationship. It’s the peak of emancipation!”
    In other words, gender roles go out the window for this would-be couple, which is refreshing in the male-dominated Westeros world. The only hiccup is that Brienne hasn’t yet returned his affections.}
    Rarely have I heard grown men talk so intensely, about a TV fantasy series. There does seem to be, if not a shatter, a certain general appeal (no announced revulsion) to this fantasy sex role blending and confusion.

    1. Have you heard of autogynephilia? With respect to this kind of manchild goonery, the idea is that they identify more with the ball-busting hyper-competent females than their (usually inferior) male counterparts. At the same time they are sexually aroused by thought of being a kick-ass sexy woman.

      You can see signs of this all through comic books, video games, and hollywood movie culture, where men routinely roleplay as hyper-sexualised female avatars that attain godlike martial prowess.

  4. "Entitlement" is not, by definition, a negative condition. Some entitlement is normally regarded as legitimate: public respect or adulation is due some people more than others because they have earned it, so they are entitled to the benefits of that station. The problem is when "entitlement" is applied at the group level rather than the individual. Hence, "white males" are accused of benefiting from "entitlement" even when it is doubtful that many of them are conscious of this notion. This is in contrast to poor minorities, who are literally entitled to government benefits, seldom being called out as "entitled" in a similar negative context.

    Is the principle of accomplishment and (strictly voluntary) recognition any different when accomplishments are made by a group rather than an individual? The pyramids of Egypt or the fortress at Machu Picchu come to mind. Or Western Civilization, overwhelmingly the work of tribes in Europe (whites). For that they _should feel_ entitled to call the shots in their respective cultures and countries but something has gone amiss.

    It is not the aggressors (symbolized here by Brienne's comment) that are the most destructive since misanthropes exist in all ages. It is the majority "entitled" white males and females who have opened the gates and laid down for the latest wave of social rebellion. They are giving away a sense of entitlement that was never recognized as such to begin with.