The average day for an American female in 2011 would likely include two contradictory things simultaneously. First, she would encourage men to support women, to respect them by default regardless of merit, and to remain as harmless and tame as possible--then, later, she would obtain and read a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey, a pornographic novel in which the main male character psychologically manipulates and emotionally abuses the main female character in order to make her mentally and sexually dependent upon him.
Fifty Shades goes against everything our hypothetical 2011 American Female would have been telling the males in her life she wants them to become. Everything she has told those men they should value and strive for, she reveals in her private time to be utterly false, and based on wishful thinking about herself and what she values, or thinks she should value. She shows, in her liesure and reading choices, her true principles, and what she truly values, regardless of what she claims: it is better, in her eyes, for a man to be dangerous and disciplined than weak and harmless.
In a time that universally encourages harmlessness as the highest male virtue, the popularity of Fifty Shades reveals the truth: Women don't like harmless men. Women cannot abide by harmless men. Women want men who are dangerous, but civilized and disciplined. If a man is weak, she will instinctively tear him to pieces. Not out of malevolence, but out of a combination of pity and instinct. Weak men are torn to pieces, and not just by other men. This is how the human species managed to survive for millennia.
If you don't think that's true, please explain Twilight, Fifty Shades, Beauty and the Beast, and every single other harlequin romance novel that has ever existed.
Courage is something done at personal risk toward a higher purpose.
Courage is not authenticity, or "living your truth," or demanding praise for who and what you are.
Identity used to be found in adjusting oneself to the structure of civilization.
Now, we are told that the structure of civilization is innately immoral, and the most courageous thing is to assert yourself authentically against that civilizational structure.
True courage, we are told now, is about you, your self expression to those around you regardless of the social consequences, and your demand that people discard their existing baseline of understanding in order to meet your redefinitions.
To redefine words that once formed a common language, to eliminate the reliability of the very definitions on which we depend to operate in a civilization, is to eliminate the baseline on which human discourse could build anything at all.
To "identify as" something that you can never become, to redefine yourself against common sense definitions, is to declare war on the very structure that holds you aloft.
Structure is not always a bad thing. Structures keep civilizations together.
Sometimes those structures are corrupt and malign, but assuming this of any and all structures is destructive and dangerous.
To make it a social priority to "dismantle systems," as though that was always a good thing, is to attempt to dismember and eliminate a civilization.
Men experience a baseline threat of possible violence in all interactions with other men, by default.
It's not a terrible threat or anything, it's just what life is for males.
If you are a man, you have to be careful in what you say to other men.
A man knows that, if he steps up and gets in another man's face with fighting words, he might get hit.
Women don't realize that because they do not experience it.
A woman knows that she will pay no consequence in the form of physical violence.
She is almost guaranteed to not pay a price in the form of physical violence, even if she herself commits violence.
As a result, female violence often goes unchallenged.
Not having to fear violence, even in response to their own violent acts, is female privilege.
You can see this at work when these neon-haired leftist activist girls assaults other women.
You can tell, when experiencing violence, that females do not expect it in response even to their "fighting words".
To be the victim of violence surprises them because it is not an underlying baseline reality of female life, like it is for males.
They don't experience it (which is a good thing!) and therefor, they feel free to be violent with impunity, and don't expect any consequences.
There has been a cascading series of mentally and socially strenuous events that have seriously affected the underlying structure of American society.
The first wave of pain came when millions of interpersonal and romantic relationships were destroyed by the rise Trump, and the reactions of people to finding out that someone close to them disagreed with them on it.
Next came Covid, used by cynical people with bad information to boss others around and silence dissent. The reaction to that, and finding out that someone disagreed, in combination with the narrative that those who dared to dissent were now medically dangerous, had further destructive implications for American communities.
Then, the 2020 election, and the reaction to it, and the catharsis of the previous four years of rage coming out in a wave of popularly sanctioned vengeance, finished off the rest of the shared framework of trust and community that the States used to depend upon to function.
In the coming days and weeks, there will be another wave of latent psychological devastation revealed when people are forced out of quarantine and into direct human contact again after being allowed for over a year to wallow in their own anxiety, depression, addiction, and isolation. This shockwave is going to be larger and more devastating than Covid-19, and it will be completely unacknowledged, silent, and not talked about. I think we underestimate how many creative, skilled, productive people were given during lockdowns the conditions to create in a way that worked very well for them. Now, it is to be taken away, and the extroverts (the jocks, let's be honest) are back in charge, shaking the introverts hand, cupping their shoulder, and loudly asking how the kids are. This is going to be a freak-out worse than Covid, but quieter. It's not going to be good.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has elected to stop granting 1-on-1 interviews to white people.
Tulsi Gabbard, who has often been the lone voice of reason in an inverted world, bravely, and at great personal risk, called Lightfoot out on her "blatant anti-white racism."
This makes her more brave and more principled than the rest of her party, as well as all of the other party.
If a white mayor said that he only wanted to be interviewed by his fellow white people he would no longer have a career.
It would be called a hate crime and universally condemned by both sides of the aisle.
Often times, people who publically announce their superior compassion by taking preachy stances on large-scale social issues do have things that are more within their sphere of influence that they would rather not deal with.
Instead, they focus on things that allow them to appear more moral and compassionate to the people around them.
In Lori's case, she ignores her hellish city with its gun violence problem (due in part to the strong gun control laws) and screams that she is oppressed instead.
That way, she can do whatever she wants to you, and you can't protest.
Tulsi Gabbard risked everything, literally, by condemning Lori's "blatant anti-white racism," her words, and calling on her to resign.
She also called on the former vice president and Kamala to do the same.
They won't, of course, but the bigger embarassment is that the Republican party didn't say a word about it.
She's right, of course. Anti-white racism exists. It is extremely common. It is the only socially acceptable form of racism. It is the only form of institutional and systemic bigotry that currently exists (though arguably, affirmative action also discriminates against Asians).
We need to look this thing in the face and call it what it is.
It's not good enough to condemn "racism" after something like this.
We have to call it what it is: anti-white racism.
The word "racist" is now just a racial slur for white people.
It is used to shame them for what they are, silence them, and bludgeon them into submission.
The thing is: it doesn't work.
It creates more racists.
Shaming someone for what they are innately, calling them racist by blood will backfire.
It's the boy who cried wolf: if everything is racist, nothing is.
Eventually, the term will be reclaimed and worn as a badge of honor.
For white males born after about 1980, race was a pain point; They were always taught to forget about it, but it was always used to shame and silence them in return.
Many young men decided to pick up the hurtful label and wear it on their chest.
"I'll be an outcast anyway. It can't hurt me this way."
The word "racist" hurts every single time.
In the past, I have stepped up to the precipice of that darkness and leaned to look over the edge.
I assure you, it is a very long way down.
I have witnessed my fellow countrymen, young whites and males with potential and smarts, go willfully careening over that edge and embrace the hateful slurs flung at them.
It is a horrible thing to do to young men.
The idea of cultural appropriation is absolute nonsense.
Cultural appropriation is literally the best part of diversity.
There is absolutely no difference between that and learning from one another.
I'm not saying there's no theft between peoples, because there is.
And I'm not saying that anyone has an immediate right to claim anyone else's ideas as their own.
But, the idea that manifesting in your own behavior an element of another culture is immoral is an insane idea.
That's the whole basis of peace between cultures.
One of the main things that diverse human beings offer one another is the value of their cultural diversity.
Now, to be fair, when a young white male becomes enamored of hip hop culture and takes on the persona and dress of black inner-city gang members, it can seem pretty riddiculous at its face.
And it is! Those people are silly.
What attracts them to it, however, is the ability hip hop has to creatively channel aggressive masculinity.
It's a reaction (and a deeply necessary one) to the modern insistence that the highest virtue a man should aim for is harmlessness.
This is a riddiculous idea.
Women don't like harmless men, they hate them, and they tear them to pieces.
In reality, a man should aim to be dangerous, because women like to civilize dangerous men (see: Beauty and the Beast).
The ideal man is dangerous, but disciplined.
The ideal fantasy for most women is something like, wild, untamed man with general disregard for others who everyone thinks is attractive or otherwise high-status.
If you don't think that's true, please explain Fifty Shades of Grey.
Reddit is a potential civilizational problem moreso than other social media apps. I have written previously about how social media uses immoral UI elements to psychologically condition users into addictive use patterns and mentally destructive habits. I spoke of the dark triad of web UI elements that accomplishes this:
- Relative timestamps ("2 hours ago" instead of "3:56pm") A.K.A. "speed"
- Infinite scrolling with no button click to "load more" A.K.A. "perpetuation"
- Icons with an associated point value (likes, retweets, reactions, upvotes, etc.) A.K.A. "addiction"
First, relative timestamps add a certain speed and immediacy to the content. One of the perks of texutal communication like email or traditional online forum posting is that it is asynchronous. You can answer that reply whenever you have the time. With relative timestamping, however, the user is subconsciously fed FOMO ("Fear Of Missing Out"), which keeps them glued to the screen for a longer period of time.
Second, the infinite scolling functionality that exists in all feed-based social media apps means that a user can scroll compulsively, half paying attention, without being interrupted, indefinitely. The result is that users unthinkingly keep themselves glued to their unending feeds for a much longer period of time, which increases profit for the company running the app.
Third, and this is where Reddit in particular really gets sinister, is "internet points". On Reddit, it is called Karma. Every thread and every comment on Reddit is subject to a Karma score. Ostensibly, this simple numeric score displays the community's overall attitude toward a given piece of content. On its face, this appears to be a radically democratic concept; Everyone can vote! In reality however, Reddit has always obfuscated the true Karma score, and the true place of a piece of content in the feed is decided by the Reddit home office, not by the community. This is incredibly, deeply sinister.
Reddit has created a community that appears to be democratic in its functioning, but is actually very specifically curated toward preferred political and social ends. It fosters an overall feeling of being an outsider in anyone who dares to disagree with what "everyone" purportedly already believes. Reddit's community makes it incredibly easy to fall into rage fits over "the other," with your political and social views slipping ever more deeply into extremism, destructiveness, and the worst of the mob mentality. "Everyone already believes X," the user says to herself, "why in the world don't I? What's wrong with me?" And thus, one is gaslit out of one's own principles, and conditioned to follow the herd without question. Because who doesn't want to fit in and be seen as "normal"?
Reddit has only developed into this Great Beast With Seven Heads And Ten Horns fairly recently. Facebook has actually been doing this exact psychological manipulation tactic for years. They tell you that your friends all think a certain way already, and that leads you to believe that you are the odd one out for having your own opinions. A while back, they even started falsely telling users that their friends were "liking" the Facebook pages of big-name sponsors when they, in fact, were not. Someone only noticed that this was happening when they saw that their deceased relative had "liked" Walmart, or Bud Light, or some such nonsense. How much more evil can you get?
The great specter haunting the twenty-first century will not be any sort of -ism. It will be the great beast of global technocracy, and Big Brother will not be a governmental entity. To the contrary, the Ministries of Truth, Peace, Love, and Plenty will all be privately owned and/or publically traded entities. In this way, no constitution or magna carta or any other document designed to keep government tyranny at bay will operate as intended; it's not the government removing your rights, only private companies, they can ban whoever they want. Right now, we can get by without Twitter or Reddit or Facebook if we really have to (and many of us do quite happily). Soon, you will not be able to opt out of the technocratic dictatorship that we are all to be subject to. Welcome to the Machine.
Like what you read? If you're feeling generous, you can tip me.