Posts Tagged ‘passive aggression’

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

We Have Reached Peak Individualist

Friday, November 4th, 2016


So how does Dow Jones the Average fight back against the SJW Empire? He hits the Off Button. Block the signal. Turn off the noise. They have to sell. You don’t have to buy. When it all gets too disgusting, you also can join a new and burgeoning social movement. You can support Peak Individualism. It is happening all around us.

The salad days are seemingly over in Hollyorc.

The autumn box office is falling, down about 16% from the same period last year, according to the tracking service comScore.

Post-summer moviegoers have shelled out $807 million at the box office since Sept. 6, including $24.7 million this weekend for Ben Affleck in The Accountant. In a record-breaking 2015, the box office brought in a robust $960.8 million for the same period (Sept. 8 through Oct. 18).

Target retail stores are having to spend $20 Million to replumb all of their stores as a result of their disastrous bathroom policy.

Target, a popular retail chain, has announced it will spend $20 million in the coming months to add single-stall bathrooms to hundreds of its stores — a move that comes following furor over the store chain’s transgender bathroom stance.

The NFL is getting thrown for a loss. It’s going about as bad for them as it was for Colon Kaepernick vs. The Buffalo Bills yesterday. Stephen L. Carter describes the entire league-wide four touchdown loss below.

…as Peter King of Sports Illustrated pointed…Ratings are down 13.4 percent, far more than the usual election year drop-off.

Carter acknowledges this could be “Kaepernick Effect.” He then backs away from this truth and gets into peculiar problems besetting the NFL and football in general. He shouldn’t have backed away from “Kaepernick Effect.” I have yet to meet an Alabama or Auburn fan that has walked away from football. It’s one league in particular suffering the current decline.

Instead, he should have extended it without loss of generality. This is not Peak Football, Peak Hollyorc or Peak Target. This is Peak individualism and it is a recurring and growing social phenomenon. I described peak individualism back when Target initially launched its execration.

It happens all the time with “successful” activism. Lefty always wins the argument. They get progress. People who consider it regress instead don’t raise their voices. They just stop coming around.

Peak Individualism is a classical form of pacifism. It is the commonly decent, civilized human being’s defense mechanism athwart SJW converences. It’s the only thing that ultimately works. Cut off their money and they run out of butt fuel. Let the narcissists whine. It’s what they typically do when they fail to produce.

You just avoid people who deliberately ruin places so you feel unwelcome there. You do not have to watch things that are deliberately gross or offensive. You do not have to enrich companies that participate or who advertise with the assholes. They can’t stop you. They can’t even detect you until they finish early counting the till. Then they have a problem.

It’s at this point where the poisonous solipsist has to clean up or be permanently shunned. It’s sad when something has to be permanently shunned but it happens. Toxic deenerates can kill anything they infect, but they do have to be starved if you want to stop them. In most cases, the narcissist-infected entity recognizes their problems and de-rectums. Then the civilized society gets their activity back again.

Just be patient and continue to passively avoid these people. They starve without you. You lose nothing without them. Never let self-interested, disingenuous SJW types convince you that it is your duty to support a parasite load. And that, in the end, is what Peak Individualism — I use another word for “individualists” in private — is.

It is the point where society gets sick of SJW parasites and opts instead to tune them out until they attention-starve, or better, put them on helicopters to the third world where their passive-aggressive selfish behavior will fit within the background noise of the dysfunctional norm. They do not belong among first-world people.

The “In” Crowd

Monday, September 19th, 2016


It is time we call the Left on what they are: peer pressure.

They are the same people who, as kids in high school, were telling us what we had to do to be one of the “in” crowd, as Baby Boomer slang has it. It was not that any of these things — how to dress, slang, little affectations — mattered at all; it was that they had control. By forcing us to be afraid and obey, they tasted power.

Power drives people who crave it, but those are limited to the people who lack it in the first place. The biggest bullies in your high school were kids with problems: bad home life, poor students, empty souls. The same is true of the people who make up the Left as adults.

They add a different spin to bullying however. First, they make it seem like a positive thing; “do x and you will be included,” instead of excluding people for having done something. However, this means that by the reflexive principle, those who do not do x are excluded. Second, they wage their bullying through passive-aggression.

This is the same way they invert language. They start to destroy a term by putting limits on it: “it can mean what it means, but not in these ways because they’re bad.” Then, the list of exclusions expands to include the original meaning. Only those who use the new term are cool. And if you refuse to, the liberals react as if you attacked them.

Liberalism takes the form of a begging-the-question fallacy:

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

In social terms, this takes the form of passive aggression. “Here is what I believe, and if you believe differently, you are attacking me.”

All of the liberal drama over being offended, triggered, etc. is designed to further this agenda. They want to style themselves as the victim and you as the aggressor, which causes their assumptions to be considered true.

In order to disguise their raw manipulation, they go seeking for cases of victimhood where they can identify with the victims, and use a presumption of guilt on the part of their targets — after all, they are not victims, so they must be victimizers — to bully the targets into accepting their nonsense.

The only known defense against this kind of attack is to have a strong social values system that excludes guilt and focuses instead on real solutions, which ends the victimhood presumption and dismantles the Leftist attack.

These people pretend to be your friends, but they are not. They are destroyers of other human beings who are emotionally stimulated by having power over other people. This allows them to become monsters.

This description applies to career Leftists for the most part. The average person supporting Leftism is both bullied into it and seduced by the idea of equality, which is actually individualism: everyone gets included, regardless of their abilities or contributions. It salves fears of social inadequacy.

All human societies tend toward too much influence of social control over time. Leftism, and its putrescent culture of guilt, is a natural consequence of this.

Equal Kindness Equals Cruelty

Monday, June 13th, 2016


Some inspiring words from part-Jewish, part-German, mostly Polish poet of American national status Charles Bukowski:

we are always asked
to understand the other person’s
no matter how
foolish or

one is asked
to view
their total error
their life-waste
especially if they are

but age is the total of
our doing.
they have aged
because they have
out of focus,
they have refused to

not their fault?

whose fault?

I am asked to hide
my viewpoint
from them
for fear of their

age is no crime

but the shame
of a deliberately

among so many


When you care about someone else, you concern yourself with whether or not their thinking is realistic, because its degree of realism determines is likelihood of success and thus, their chances for achieving what they desire.

Making kindness equal in turn equalizes both true and untrue statements, meaning that the concern for outcome is entirely thrown away. It is like frenemy status, or passive-aggression, or codependency: a way of seeming to support another person while actually condemning them to failure.

Equality is like this entirely. It discards the need for quality of results with the appearance of goodwill for all, while subtly sabotaging them so that the defensive individual can both succeed and do so at the expense of others. It is a toxic, civilization-destroying worldview.

Awakening from the nightmare of democracy

Monday, November 23rd, 2015


Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.

People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.

For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.

Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.

Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.

Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:

According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.

You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.

As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.

Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.

Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.

A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.

…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.

Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.

As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.

In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.

Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …

Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.

The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.

According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.

…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)

…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.

…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.

How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.

What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.

In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.

In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.

According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.

Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.

We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.

Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?

I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.

As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.

In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.

Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.

Social justice: a psychological defensive impulse

Wednesday, October 28th, 2015


It is well-known that one cannot “teach” anything to a social justice worker, or “SJW.” These people organize on the internet at night to attack those they feel are on the wrong side of history. Like a cult, SJW works as a circular confirmation of reason: any challenge is seen as an enemy, and “therefore,” it affirms the truth of what is arrayed against it. They believe they are as righteous as the holiest holy man, as altruistic as Mother Theresa, and as solidly-grounded in reality as the most astute scientist. And yet, at heart, they are a lynch mob which delights in tearing down those more successful than it and then justifying those acts with far-Left ideology.

Liberal (Leftist) thinking has always been debilitating to insight, and despite many analyses on the topic, seems immune to criticism which might provoke introspective. Its inherently defensive, passive-aggressive outlook creates confirmation bias every time it is challenged. This causes me to query as to its origins as a psychology. The Liberal Mind is a book written by the psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter describing how liberal thinking is a nurtured condition, meaning that it starts with psychological instability and becomes a pathology through the hands of others, just like neurosis can be conditioned into obsessive-compulsive purchasing by the right television advertising.

Following up on that, Just Business, Not Personal is another book written by the now deceased psychiatrist Howard F Stein describing how organizations adopt the personalities of their owners and officers. Again a sort of nurtured effect: people in groups are influenced by the culture of that group, but the culture is changed by how people behave and the reasoning they give — even if excuses and justifications — for their actions. How the Mighty Fall by Jim Collins shows the end-effect of liberal nurture in that only approximately 11 out of 20,000 listed companies are assessed as “Great” as opposed to merely “Good.” He does not use the term conservative or liberal, but its quite clear once you look at the empirical failure conditions he condensed (over 10 years) for us mere mortals. The culture of companies reflects the individuals in them, and most are mediocre, with some rising barely above to be good enough to succeed — but not Great.

In the recent economic recession, only one hedge fund seemed to be actually hedging against loss, Universa Investments L.P. This follows from the idea that most companies are in fact nowhere near as competent as they estimate themselves to be, perhaps because something in the general audience of workers conditions them — “nurtures” them — into being mediocre.

So, how does this happen — I mean — where did this nurture thing kick in?

From my limited exposure I am certain that children aged 4-5 start the reasoning process with their parents. Once the child attains the ability to communicate, logic and realism is embedded into them through feedback with parents, others and the world. The parents, in this time-frame, “teach” the kid to do things like cycling or eating properly, the reason one stands up and walk, or sit and eat or laying flat to sleep, as part of explaining why there are roads, or chairs, or beds. The liberalized kid does not learn this. For him/her it is not logic to sit and eat; it is a “moral right” because the parents sit and eat — therefore he/she can also do it. He/she does not cycle down the road because its faster and effective, but because the “other” kids are doing it, so the liberalized child assumes it has the “moral right” to the same. If you look at collective societies, this is where they go wrong.

This juncture is also where the notion of “equality” starts and this is also where it should be killed with pure simple bi-lateral reasoning. Studies by the South African Research Council (CSIR) into criminal behavioral solutions pointed this out as well. I also have the input (based on a book by John T. Malloy) that engineers become creative if they had this — and he actually calls it conservative — experience at that tender age.

However, we all know that not having both parents is problematic. Psychologists also identify “developmental psychology where children growing up cannot “take it” and become traumatized. These trauma can also lead to defensive behavior that can be passed to next generations and so, I would like to posit that this particular strain of defensivity results in SJW action. The reason can be condensed by saying SJWs are anti-realistic not because they are not logical, but because they reference moral rights in a universal context as if still under the care of their parents.

It’s like looking into your own shiny glasses, instead of looking through them. It’s logical to look through glasses, while its morally your right to have glasses because others have those shiny ones too. This goes even further than looking at the glasses. The affected person will continuously in his/her own mind play his/her anticipatory game of who to coattail, or what future moral benefit to gain, instead of achieving simple situational awareness.

In other words, what reasonable people will grasp in seconds, the defensive SJW person will first play in his/her simulacrum head-game overnight, still never actually getting it. They do not exist in reality but in a world composed of moral judgments and based in feelings, lost in a pathology of competition with the parents who failed them. The parents created a culture that nurtured this outlook, and the children carry it on, patient zeroes of a force that will erode the civilization around them and plunge it into eternal darkness.

Passive aggression is mean-spiritedness

Thursday, September 17th, 2015


Almost all human arguments consist of excuses. In a social setting, almost all of them are intended to use that excuse to gain sympathy with the group, winning through numbers — influenced by emotion and appearance — over logic.

The most common way to win these arguments is to style yourself as the underdog or victim. Social groups hate bullies, cruelty and the thought that someone is right in contradiction to what each of them wants to believe is true. Passive aggression works by provoking the opposition into taking an argument which seems to be place the arguer in a position of victimhood.

The passive-aggressive behavior is a variation of the “Begging the Question” fallacy, itself of this form:

“If shooting hipsters were moral, it would not be illegal.”

These are themselves a variation on the classic circular argument: A validates B, but if you doubt A, look to B which also validates A. Passive-aggression creates an implicit begging of the question by engaging in a questionable behavior and then defending it on the basis of individual choice as evidenced by the victimhood of the arguer.

Person 1: I believe in living to shoot heroin.

Person 2: That’s going to have all kinds of negative consequences.

Person 1: Why are you trying to limit my freedom? This is my life quest and passion, and you’re a big burly fascist trying to censor me and control me.

In all liberal actions, the attack begins through the most innocuous provocateur violating some rule of the target. When the target responds, this person is styled as an innocent victim and it is argued, therefore, that this exception invalidates the rule, missing the point that obvious exceptions are taken into account with most rules. All that matters is appearance, and styling the situation — “spinning” it — into a David versus Goliath tale in which Goliath is the big, stupid and cruel enemy. That wins over a crowd.

When people retaliate against passive aggression, they are accused of being mean-spirited. Some of this comes about because people realize when they have been trapped by a cheap trick, and also realize that others around them are oblivious and thoughtless and will not notice, and are indignant, rightfully so. The rest comes out because the passive-aggressive suggestion is obviously stupid and a waste of time, and the accusation of victimization is obviously spurious, which is in itself defamatory and offensive. The accusation of “mean-spirited” however counts for most people as victimization, which hilariously serves as proof of the correctness of the argument for the original passive-aggressively offered act. For this reason, passive-aggression is itself mean spirited, as it is a concealed attack without logic on its side, and its goal is destruction of that which could not be attacked by legitimate means.

GamerGate reveals leftist MO of passive aggression

Monday, October 20th, 2014


Officially, GamerGate is over. The debate about it has only begun, mostly because it was never understood.

GamerGate combines several hot-button issues. The first is the corruption of our media, which is why they are eager to declare it over and dead. The second is the intrusion of “social justice warrior” (SJW) politics into the field of gaming and beyond. The third is political correctness and whether we have any right to escape it ever.

These three issues converge on a single fact: the liberal modus operandi can be described as passive aggression. They find a healthy host, infect it with commentators, and then attack it when it refuses to accept those commentators as its original voice and purpose.

Likely this description seems familiar to you, because it’s also how liberals infect a civilization… or how Ebola sneaks into your cells. Sidle up to that innocent party, start dressing like it and acting like it, then claim a right to its food supply and start reproducing yourself inside of it. Liberals are not a legitimate political movement; they are parasites, a job program for other liberals and, like Ebola, they generally kill their hosts.

GamerGate began in the 1990s when gaming became A Thing. I cannot claim to be a gamer and I dislike impersonation, but I think most of us remember around 1998 or so when gaming went from the fringe to being a big industry, and thus all the grey heads in suits noticed because money is their only god. When some new field becomes A Thing, all the other people who want money show up as well. Quite a few of these are journalists.

Looking back at the timeline, GamerGate really began as a scandal within journalism itself. Someone noticed a strange correlation between a female writer’s career and her choice of sexual partners; this story is nothing new, but since it was attacking a journalist, it provoked ire. Ire of this sort generally happens when there is something to the accusation, namely that it is closer to business-as-usual than people would like to think. What they also do not want you thinking about is that it is usually harmless, since writing copy from press releases is not difficult and almost all journalists bleat out the same ideological material anyway, so it’s not as if promoting one over the other has any actual impact.

(Sorry, journalists, it’s true: once you started writing NPR-style “emotional” stories, the difference between your writing styles became inconsequential. This style lets you hide behind a flood of adjectives and emotionally manipulative symbols, but that’s more on the level of clicé than innovation. The quality level between journalists varies mildly, and content is the only real difference. As it has always been, I might add.)

Then there is the question of whether SJWs have made too far of an inroad into gaming. A better question is: are SJWs in any way relevant to gaming? Practical experience says no because gaming is about… gaming itself. It does not need a class of zampolit to enforce political standards, nor does it need a dialogue about whether it has enough black, female, minority, gay, etc. characters. A good game is a good game, and if a good game designer incorporates those elements, people will probably not mind. However, unless forced to by political correctness, game designers generally do not include such things because they are antithetical to a good story. A good story involves an everyman or someone described as one who rises to power by conquering a great fear and/or great enemy, usually the two in tandem. None of this has anything to do with SJW objectives.

Finally, the question of “political correctness” arises. This thoroughly Soviet term refers to degree of conformity to language which reflects leftist objectives. This only matters if your objective is to have leftism take over the world, which few liberals deny is their objective. As SJWs and other leftists see it, the problem with gamers is that their goal is not world leftism. The inversion here is that it was not the gamers complaining about political correctness, but the politically-correct complaining about a lack of political correctness in gaming, that set the whole thing off.

All of this serves to obscure what GamerGate shows us in an instant: a corrupt media which panders to one side of the equation for its own convenience, forcing itself into a genre to take it over for its ideological masters, and then squealing like a stuck pig because the residents there did not approve of its ideological takeover. This is the standard liberal MO that they have repeated time and again: act as if they are necessary until they force the prospective host to lash out at them, then fall to the ground wailing about how abused they are, and use that social guilt as a means to justify permanent entry and subsidy by the host. At least Ebola spares us the neurotic justifications and simply takes what it wants.

Sitzkrieg’s end

Saturday, April 27th, 2013

sitzkriegs_endNow that the tattered bunting of the Boston Marathon has been taken down, the grillwork security barricades stacked and put away and the shrapnel swept up, the chorus of self-flagellation has begun. The introspection. The blaming of the victims. The shaming of American patriotism.

We must apologize to the enemies, we’re told. If we apologize to them sufficiently, perhaps they will no longer want to kill us: the Chechens, the Iraqis, the Afghans, people who have been fighting for centuries or a millennium against far crueler adversaries than the United States.

We’ll apologize to them, shrill the leftists. These cries are passive aggressive. They’re passive aggressive toward those who disagree — those who think that we should, you know, hit back against those who attack us. They’re also passive aggressive toward the attackers. Imagine hipsters swinging their tatty leather messenger bags at amused Taliban personnel. Sneering at them and hoping they go away, those scary men whose truly foreign beards and sandals and checkered kaffiyeh scarves are so authentic but so inexplicably unhip.

Maybe sneering will work. Maybe the Taliban personnel will become annoyed enough to leave, back down to the construction zone by the 911 cenotaph where they’ve been busily planning a mosque. Maybe the North Korean gulag dictatorship will cease its nuclear ambitions. Maybe the Chechens will take their pressure cookers back to their boxing gyms.

It’s something wrong with our foreign policy, the leftists cry. Obama has been far too aggressive in his application of missiles from predator drones, surgical strikes designed to attrit the enemy, destroy their terrorist training camps and impinge upon their ability to deliver asymmetric attacks by boxcutter or pressure cooker or whatever black swan is next. And be sure that there will be a next one, and a next one after that, contemptuous little kicks to a tottering infrastructure and economy. Little hard-heeled shin kicks to let us know they’re still here, the sleepers, and to remind us that it hasn’t even started. The Big One. The Other Shoe.

The term Sitzkrieg refers to the period at the beginning of World War II, when hostilities had been formally declared but none of the belligerents had yet made any major moves.

Oh, those innocent days when hostilities were formally declared.

With world events going as they are, the bites of numerous little connected adversaries getting deeper, it’s hard to shake the sensation that our generation’s decade-long Sitzkrieg is over.

We don’t know exactly who sent the Tsarnaev brothers, though we certainly know where they came from. Chechnya has been torn by war before, last by the Soviets, who lost so much patience with the Chechens during the Grozny war that they literally reduced the city to rubble, going block by block with demolitions teams and saturation bombardments of artillery.

Some time after that, they had the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis and then the Beslan school massacre, both terrorist attacks of appalling barbarism, both perpetrated by Chechens. Russia resolved the attacks with characteristically greater barbarism: at the Moscow Theatre, over a hundred died from the unknown gas agent pumped into the building by the rescuers, and at Beslan it wasn’t clear how many of the hostages were killed by the terrorists and how many were killed by their Spetsnaz saviors. The Russians know how to make those sorts of calculations, and they’re not afraid to answer the ugly with even more ugliness.

Say what you like about their methods but the Russians know how to handle problems like that. There wasn’t much shuffling of feet in the Kremlin, not much wringing of hands trying to figure out how to behave. The Kremlin knew exactly how to behave.

Of course they were roundly chastised by the United States and the United Nations, roundly censured with much tongue clucking and finger shaking while the bodies were still warm. We supported the Chechens, back in the days of the Cold War: they kept pressure on the USSR as part of the Containment Doctrine.

Now the Chechens are here, and Soviet Russia has gone away, and the pressure cookers are in us.

A decade later, we’re dealing with those same people. People who are used to fighting the Russians, people whose cold calculus is informed by Russian and other asian methods of deception and asymmetric warfare. Those who shrilled conspiracy theories about the overwhelming paramilitary response in Boston would do well to remember that if reports are true, we still have a cell of ten to twelve Chechens running loose in Boston. Instead of shrilling, those people would do well to hope the Chechens are caught soon, since the tiny Chechen diaspora here in the US doesn’t offer much opportunity for hiding places and that means that whatever cells may be here will have to act quickly before they’re rounded up.

Back in the aftermath of September 11, the question was often asked: “Why do the muslims hate us? Why do they hate America?”

Since then, I’ve spent a great deal of time wondering why the leftists hate America. The truth is, they hate America because they hate masculine power. They hate authority. They hate the civil society that America represents, and of course, since they are products of the United States, as American as apple pie, their hatred is self-hatred: masochistic self-flagellation.

They hate America because they hate themselves.

They’re chattering hard, in their echo chambers and online coffee klatches, places like Salon and Huffington. They’re thinking about how to placate our enemies. Perhaps they’re secretly hoping that cruel men with convictions will come and end their repulsive weakness and degeneracy. End their directionlessness, give them the fear that might make life seem worthwhile again.

Though any Westerner with any sense would never make common cause with such monsters as the Tsarnaevs, those of us with any balls must look upon the shrilling leftists with more than a little contempt. At the end of the day, what common cause do we really have with them?

During the Boston incident, many of the leftist hate brigade did indeed quiet their shrilling, for a little while. Though they would never admit it to themselves, they were happy to see those black-helmeted, high-testosterone mesomorphs with scary black guns patrolling among their upscale apartments and latte houses. Making them safe, protecting them from a wounded nineteen-year-old boy with a pistol because they would never have the stones to do it for themselves.

Until recent events, many Americans have been very concerned about recent purchases by the Department of Homeland Security: over a billion bullets and over a thousand armored vehicles. It’s easy to be concerned by that sort of gearing up, but what’s more concerning, to those who have understanding, is the implication that the war may be heating up again, and that it may be coming here to the home front. That the DHS and other three letter agencies, organizations that we’ve paid hundreds of billions to gather intelligence, have been doing their job since 911.

That they may know something we don’t. Something that keeps them awake at night.

The latte-house set are sorely deluded in their belief that the rest of the world is part of the latte house as well. We — citizens of the Western Prosperity Sphere — have deadly, implacable enemies, and we’re going to have them as long as we have superpower status. When we no longer have superpower status, we’ll have a chance to see the true measure of states like China and Russia, and of the Muslim Brotherhood and their emerging hegemon. Putin said to Bush “The day will come when you long for the days of the cold war,” referring to the fracturing and balkanization of the established powerblocks into numerous foggy entities. After we’ve slipped more, fallen further into dirty socialism, taken our ball and civil society and gone home from the world stage, it’s possible that many of the pinkos who slandered us in all our missteps and little moments of goodness may think back fondly on the days of the United States.

If we fall, it won’t be for long. Something new will emerge, the way it’s emerging in Russia and in scattered green shoots all over Europe. Something strong.

Something the latte-house leftists won’t like at all.

A Short Fragment

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

A young girl heard me speak, and asked: “Sir, what is the definition of a definition?” I was highly intrigued because I read genuine wonder sparkling on her delicate features. And admittedly the question was a good one. The sun shone upon the garden and I smelled the freshly cut grass – deeply inhaling the air in celebration because genuine curiosity was still to be found in the world.

“A definition is a thing human beings have come up with to make rational conversation possible at all.” I answered, “Then it remains the question whether it is rational to make further demands for this thing.” (The demand being that that thing could itself be defined.)

“What if I say it is necessary to do so?” One of her friends inquired. The luminosity searing from the skies briefly flickered on her fair and golden strands of hair.

“You can,” I said, “but you would have to bring your grounds forward to make clear why it is necessarily so. And I think at that moment, you’d find yourself in trouble.”

They nodded. Another girl approached us. She was one of their companions, and somewhat different; whereas the others looked like girls in the proper sense, this one seemed desperate to look like a young woman. “Why are you even talking to us?” she said – it wasn’t a question. “Don’t you have a girlfriend? Don’t you have a car? You’re twice our age, you shouldn’t even be talking to us.”

A woman told me, “Don’t be so obsessive about me”. I said; “Obsessive? You’d like to think others would obsess over you so that you can turn them down.”

When I tried to speak to her rationally about the topic, she posed the query if I perhaps preferred her to have no opinion and just to pump out children. Adding – before I could reply – that thankfully those unhappy days were over in the Western world.

“That’s the thing with your insincerity,” I answered, “drawing your power from the narrative of feminism; painting a picture of the world in which the evil of men, at the blink of a moment, will lead them to drag you in chains to the stove. Lock your wrists to the cradle . . .”

“Yet,” I added, “at the same time you use your sexual attractiveness to bait men, to seduce them, and to let them buy your drinks. You wear more make-up when you apply for a new job than when you go to work to your current.”   

You see that’s the problem with women these days; if you just talk to them casually about daily stuff, they’ll think you are too formal and too boring. If you try to charm and enthral them a bit, they do their best to explicate anything sexual in it, and feign to be offended by it, so that they can talk down on you and feel better about themselves.

This drives on the power that we feel that deep down inside, admittance of sexual desire is something to be ashamed of; a narrative grained upon us by Protestantism and the Victorian era and now exploited by women. A girl loses her purity the moment she finds out her sensuousness and sexual attractiveness can serve as a source of power – that she can bring sentiments up in a man and then condescend him when he gives the most innocent testimony of them.