Monday, May 02, 2016

They assume we think the same way they do

An American leftist woman named Sally Kohn has claimed the following on CNN:
SALLY KOHN, CNN: Look, people are only voting for Donald Trump, most of his supporters are only voting for him because he’s a white guy. And frankly, if he were a woman, or if he were, I don’t know, let’s pick, Latino, Muslim, any of the groups that he’s stoked hatred amongst his supporters, if he were any of those, I don’t think he’d be getting support either.

It's not true. Even trads like myself who believe that men have a special responsibility to provide political leadership would still vote for a female (or minority) candidate who broke with political correctness in order to uphold national borders.

It's possible that Sally Kohn is assuming that everyone thinks the same way that she does. Her left-liberal political outlook runs as follows:

1. Society is a neutral space in which everyone competes individually for material outcomes like money and status.
2. Therefore, if women and blacks are not getting the same material outcomes society is not neutral but biased. It is biased because white men have organised together to rig society in their favour.
3. Therefore, equality demands that white male society be deconstructed. This will then bring about the long awaited promised land where everyone has an equal freedom to pursue their goals.
4. If white men object to being deconstructed it is because they wish to uphold the privilege that society grants them.
5. Women and minorities are therefore a progressive force who should unite together to defeat white men, hence identity politics. A female president would and should represent a dismantling of white male power structures.
6. White men are supporting a white male candidate to defend the status quo system of self-interested privilege.

What Sally Kohn doesn't understand is that not everybody is a liberal who accepts the first step in all this. For some people, America is not just a neutral space but a country and culture they identify with and that helps to form their identity. For such people, open borders represent the gradual dissolution of a larger communal existence that provides an important setting for their lives. What matters, in other words, is the defence of a national existence, rather than men banding together to assert power and privilege. If a well-spoken, well-presented and well-resourced woman were to come along and promote policies favouring America's national existence, I suspect she too would have become popular amongst those who are now supporting Trump.


  1. Like all liberals, she is the racist. When she looks at people, all that registers in her utterly prejudiced brain is the way they correspond, or not, to those prejudices. She will notice the colour of their skin and their sex, probably nothing else. Such extreme reductionism inevitably leads to a complete incomprehension of the lives and motives of what are disparate human beings. As if that's not bad enough, they project their ignorance and prejudice upon those who refuse to get with their programme.

  2. I'm white and I wanted to vote for Herman Cain when he ran for president; I was really disappointed when he dropped out of the race.
    If anyone doesn't remember him, look him up on the web...

  3. I should add that race and sex ("gender") do matter for trads in certain contexts. But we do not have the same logic of identity politics that left-liberals do - and it seems that sometimes left-liberals assume that we do but are just on the other side to them.

    1. Why did you use the term "gender"? Why did you add it after "sex"? Who were you addressing that to? For whom were you making a distinction? Have you now adopted "gender" as a legitimate term of use?

    2. The problem is that sex has two different meanings in English. I was attempting to make clear which one I was referring to.

  4. (I can't tell what is, or is not being posted here.)

    I give up.

    Nothing that I, or anyone else has said, or can say, is going to stop the inevitable. That you feel, for whatever reason, thoughtfully or reflexively, that you must clarify for your readers, on this web site, what you mean by sex, is disheartening. I must be making no sense at all.

    1. A couple of weeks ago I stumbled upon the only blogger with the same clear view as I hold; that any use of "gender" outside of a grammar school classroom and the text book open to a nine year old child, who gets a one-day instruction on pronouns, is surrender or capitulation to gaydom/femdom.

      He posts too infrequently. Maybe he can explain what I can't.

    2. It's not that you haven't explained clearly it's that using the term "sex" is still sometimes unclear to readers because:
      1. New readers won't have heard the arguments about keeping the terms sex and gender distinct
      2. In some contexts using the term sex doesn't clarify which of the two meanings of this word is intended. For example take this sentence:
      "In human life sex is important".
      Most new readers will assume that this means "In human life having sexual intercourse is important" rather than "In human life the fact of being a man or a woman is important".

    3. I sympathise with your frustration at the hijacking of language by the perverted for the purpose of deceiving the public. I avoid using the term 'gay' because not only is it stealing a perfectly fine word, but is intended to conjure an image of happy-go-luckiness that could not be further from the reality. The use of the term 'gender' is similarly misapplied for the same aim of deceiving the gullible. In its proper grammatical context, gender is something that can be masculine, feminine or neutral, with some of the supposedly 'sexual' properties applicable to objects in such ways that male objects might in some cases be described by a 'feminine' noun, for example, consequently providing the fluid, ambiguous grounding that the perverts need. You are perfectly right. The insidious propaganda that slowly establishes itself as normal discourse is a victory for the perverts and leads to control of the narrative. It becomes so routine that it is extremely difficult not to be captured by it. The crucial question is, what can be done?

  5. Michael asks the important question: what can be done?
    I'm convinced that the only hope we have of reversing the course of this modern social/psycho-sexual disorder (a single, but integral component of modern liberalism), is to attempt to reverse its acceptence, approval and accommodation using the same simple tactics that lead it to its remarkably rapid and near universal favor.
    The essence of modern liberalism is, to me, a denial and defiance of the natural order, assuming a natural order exists. The well-ordered consensus seems to be that if small pockets of right-minded people maintain the right traditions and survive, and keep good records and journals, that nature will re-order itself in due time. We being kind of like pod people in reverse. That seems a little too laissez faire to me, and sort of like an inside-out, guilt-free indulgence in a lower level of nihilism. Going about my day-to-day, quietly doing nothing more than thinking about this and occasionally pondering a scheme at this key board - sending thoughts into the cloud - seems, also, like a somewhat numb and passive sort of self-indulgent voyeurism. I'm just speaking for myself. I'm stumped.
    I have only one idea, and that's all I've been doing; relentlessly, like a crazy person, for a number of years. I didn't make a formal committment to myself, to never accept the lie. It just irks me to no end, and I react. My hair hurts. I never accept the lie. I never let it go. To what good end? I don't know. But, I can't stop. I try to imagine what would happen if everyone I know did the same thing, if we each persuaded another, and we never let up...I'm told anything is possible.
    I have gone deep into the weeds on this, twice with the same good friend. He listens quietly and looks at me like I have two heads. He nods, but I'm sure that he has no idea what I'm talking about or why. He has no time for this kind of thing. I have to keep that in mind. That is critical. He only hears this from me.
    They got us here with the lie. They, the homosexualist intellectual elite, had a grand strategy, and brilliant tactical maneuvers. (Read After the Ball, for the broad strokes.) They kept it so, so simple. They occasionally lost a skirmish, but never lost a battle. If victory is gaining a monopoly on the use of force, they have won the war. We, in the West, are living under occupation.
    What did they do? It was so obvious. First things first. Control the language; at all costs, control the language. Do that, and you control the ideas. Win the propaganda war and everything else comes easy.
    Gaydom hates and dispises "homosexual" and "sodomy". They knew, for obvious reasons, that if they were to persuade society to defy and deny this particular realm of the natural order, that they must convince most of us that they are a natural and normal part of it. To do that, they had to overcome a natural and normal revulsion to the very essence of homosexuality; same-sex sex and desire. The sex in "homosexual" had to be removed, hidden and made benign, until they could emerge in force.

  6. Enter: the "gay" lifestyle.
    They also, on a side track, attempted to convince doubters that same-sex activity observed in animals is no different than conscious human activity. They lost that skirmish, but it proved unnecessary.
    Soon, academia invented "gender". Now, gaydom/femdom had us surrounded. A huge industry emerged. Doctors, shrinks, academics,...and lawyers. Money and influence flowed to politicians. The modern liberal family and lifestyle was codified into law, against feeble and inept opposition.
    We're on the beach, approaching the exposed head of America's Statue of Liberty. "Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it. You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
    I reply to as many writers as I can. It's always the same message. I never hear back. I strike a line through gender and [sex] at every instance in their text. I then make my case, which seems so obvious.
    Try it yourself. Find any number of random writings within gaydom/femdom. Replace every instance of "gender" with sex. The text turns into gibberish. I think that that alone should be sufficient to make our case, but it isn't.
    Gender is not sex.
    I provide the same (now boilerplate) commentary, explaining that people are sexed male or female, and only words are gendered in grammar books...etc.
    I'm am the only person that I know of who does what I do. What if I were a million? Or, many millions?
    I'm like a mosquito bite, I know. One smack and I'm dead. But, if a swarm of mosquitos met the homosexualist every time they tried to relax on the patio...
    Mark would probably like to whack me. I understand. I don't know what else to do. So, I do what is obvious; so, so obvious and clear to me. I attack "gender" every time. I give chase to "gay" less frequently. "Gay" has left the building.
    I have ask: How did we discuss and communicate and articulate any of the wide range of thoughts, ideas and concepts involving and concerning sex and men and women,...before the homosexualist provided us with the word "gender", which has apparently ended several thousand years of confusion?
    If I have to evoke "gender" to explain what I mean by sex, shoot me. I'm done.

  7. correction to the above:

    I reply to as many writers as I can. It's always the same message. I never hear back. I strike a line through gender and ADD [sex] at every instance in their text. I then make my case, which seems so obvious.

    1. Buck, although I think it's useful to get the language right, I don't think it's going to win the war. Liberals believe that there is nothing outside of our own choices that is inherently moral. That's where the war is won or lost. Once a person accepts that starting point, then the rest follows, and the language is only a strategy. For instance, if you believe that we are most truly defined as human when we are autonomously self-defined, then the predefined things will be thought of negatively as getting in the way of human freedom and dignity. That includes our own sex, whether it is called our sex or our gender. The point for a liberal is, one way or another, to make it not matter. If a liberal were forced to use the word sex instead of gender they would simply claim that sex exists along a spectrum, or that there are dozens of sexes, or that someone born genetically one sex can still identify as the other sex and is a heroic for doing so.

    2. Thank you Mark, for your patience, and for hosting this discussion. We've probably reached an impasse on this particular issue. I continue to strongly disagree with you, for a bunch of reasons. One, because I'm hard headed and I can not avoid the logic of my argument. Another, is that almost no one seems to be doing what I suggest. Until that happens...
      In person, I can stop and re-direct a casual discussion. No one, yet, has been intellectually prepared to defend "gender" when it is reduced to male and female. I get the "duh" look.
      You well describe the unreality of the modern liberal position. "Gender" is clearly unreal. We need to challenge that, and get the discussion back to reality.
      You write that "If a liberal were forced to use the word sex instead of gender they would simply claim that sex exists along a spectrum, or that there are dozens of sexes, or that someone born genetically one sex can still identify as the other sex and is a heroic for doing so." That's one definition of insanity. I don't recall ever coming across a serious person effectively arguing as you suggest, certainly not in the text of any public policy or law, without deploying the created concept of "gender". The argument has to move to "gender" and to what the subject individual or group under "duress", feels and believes. Never to reality.
      Think about our discussions, and imagine "gender" advocates doing what you suggest, making their case without the power and well-established authority of their "gender" myth. Imagine them doing so in the public sphere, in the media, where the general population now hears them and understands them to be talking only about sex. If no one in the media could speak or write the word "gender", the news-readers and commentator's heads would explode. At the least, they would be tongue tied and unable to tell the modern liberal "narrative".
      The whole point of "gender" (as with "gay") is to get the public's mind off sex. Even the simplest mind knows that there are only two sexes.

    3. Science, biology class, the Nature Channel, even PBS has taught us from the beginning, about the two sexes, the only two sexes. We learned as young children about male and female biological distinctions and functions. It's everywhere, across millions of species of animals. It's always the same, always male and the female, and nothing but male and female. How can anyone plausibly argue that there are more than two sexes? No third sex or actual hermaphrodite has ever been documented in all of human history. Greek and Hollywood myths don't count. I doubt many will attempt to compare themselves to the hermaphrodite snail or slug or earthworm, or potted plant, which actually embody both sex organs at once, on one end or the other, or that physically morph sequentially from one to the other. Again, a physical reality, a biological fact.
      When the fraud of the "53+ gender" mythology is understood, seen clearly as the insidious tactic that it was, and purged from the public realm, it will be impossible for gaydom to continue to make the case that what an individual feels and desires, is sufficient cause for civilization to override human tradition, to change public policy, to defy and deny the natural order and common sense, rather than to treat and perhaps cure or resolve, to properly manage within families and communities, the psycho/sexual disorders now being enabled, encouraged and celebrated, and as you say; deemed heroic. These people are suffering and committing suicide.
      When the discussion is returned to sex and to the project for unfettered sexual activity, which is what it is and has always actually been about; that only two distinct biological sexes constrain the expanding range of sexual desires, proclivities and perversions; that is what will then, have to be discussed. The discussions will be about what is real and that discussion will be repugnant. That's the very reason that "gender" and "gay" were created, and the reason that they must be exposed.
      It's not like I'm soliciting for voluntary pick and shovel labor. I'm continually puzzled by resistance to this (speaking generally) by anyone who is not a "gender" advocate or acolyte. How can refusing to say "gender" hurt? It's cognitive dissonance.
      I see no other path. I'd love to hear about one that doesn't entail us waiting countless generations, hoping that this will burn itself out, hundreds or thousands of years after we're gone.