*This is the Prolepticon... read site disclaimers
The LowBrowsing News Blog was short-lived I'm afraid. I have decided that my first instinct was correct - just turn off all social media for a while. I will be focusing on my academic research and on creative writing projects.
Using Voat was a very interesting experience and I believe that there are really great people there. Unfortunately, that forum is riddled with dogmatic Christian Right, hate-filled radical isolationists, pedophiles exploiting the "free speech" promise, and general misanthropes.
My conclusions have not changed since my Voat vs Gab article - we need a true free speech platform and one which phases out destructive and pointless forms of free expression that are not free speech, such as free gibberish and free ravings.
I will return to social media when that happens. My final hours on Voat were inspiring. The community started fighting back against the pedophiles and demanded that they get booted. However, the pedos and misanthropes throttled that by trolling the down-vote buttons on comments. It is clear that the owner of the site believes that it is hypocritical to censor pedophiles and justifies that position through advocating his definition of "free speech". Here is what I had to say about that:
"Free speech fizzles out when children aren't protected.
When children aren't protected from moral degeneracy then they grow up desperately seeking security, and this makes them fodder for becoming ideologues. They will desperately run to adopt someone else's answer to things and then use that ideology as a security blanket.
Once they have become ideologues their expressions are not free and their speech is not free. They simply spout garbled renditions of the messages of their masters.
I say remove all quasi-kiddie porn stuff from Voat in the logic of protecting free speech (more than in protecting the reputation of Voat per se."
The pedophiles had drawn attention to themselves through posting images of pornstars in the "WhiteBeauty" subverse. I had been finding that subverse inspirational up until then.
I am white and have dated women of every color and creed (not a brag, nor an exaggeration). I am open-minded to meeting the right woman who could be of any background, but I am most interested in white European women. I believe that the peoples that moved to Europe in prehistoric times were those who had a strong work ethic and a sensibility toward desiring breathing room geographically as well as aseptic conditions. Europe through its harsh wintry weather provided the ideal environment for those types of personalities and dispositions. In addition, the low-light levels over time led to a kind of morosity for northern Europeans that I experience and I find that women who share this with me are kindred spirits that can help lift me out of that gloom unlike any other kind of woman I have met can do.
And so, I posted the image above to the WhiteBeauty subverse and believe that it exemplifies the positive qualities I find in European ethnic heritage. I know the family in the image and they were high school sweethearts. I envy the life they have forged for themselves and I wish them the best. I think that there is no better example of White Beauty in this world really.
I also took an opportunity to plug Cato the Elder who I believe is a historical figure that we sorely need back with us today. He did everything right and preserved the health of the Roman Republic. It's a shame he wasn't immortal so that he could have been an enlightened despot for Rome centuries after. I discovered Cato the Elder during research after watching a video that had been posted at Voat. The video was by OrderOfMan and I know nothing about that channel, but the message "Intentionality" was incredibly positive and inspiring.
Therefore, I searched out the root of that inspiration and found it in Cato the Elder. I then compiled some historical details and posted them to Voat:
Cato the Elder (Marcus Porcius Cato) aka Cato the Censor, Cato the Wise, Cato the Ancient
Roman senator and historian 234-149 BC
Quotes (published and attributed):
The best way to keep good acts in memory is to refresh them with new.
Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.
I would much rather have men ask why I have no statue, than why I have one.
Grasp the subject, the words will follow.
We cannot control the evil tongues of others; but a good life enables us to disregard them.
An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.
Patience is the greatest of all virtues.
I think the first virtue is to restrain the tongue; he approaches nearest to gods who knows how to be silent, even though he is in the right.
Cato the Elder's wisdom speaks for itself and so far it seems like he had everything right. What was really shocking to me was that Rome was suffering the social ills that the West faces today well before the Empire. In fact, one might presume that the perpetuation of these ills is what set up the conditions possible for converting Rome from a republic to an empire. And so what does the future have in store for us?
I then took some liberties...
I decided to indulge a bit in bigotry and get some monkeys off my back. Islam has had no development historically whereby there is a schism that has produced a more moderate sect (unlike Christianity with the Reformation). Islamic society in its most "moderate" articulations remains pervasively misogynistic. I am pro-woman, pro-man, pro-civilization. Feminism is anti-woman. For the sake of power in the attempt to grab top-spot, feminists throw Muslim women under the bus, withholding support for their suffrage. I find this deplorable.
No young woman chooses to dress as proscribed by her father and husband. Muslim women do not have the choice to remove their hijab, niqab and burka. The father and then husband choose for them. The idea that religion is used to reinforce that sexism is irrelevant and it doesn't authorize the sexism. God is either non-existent or a non-sexist. Sexist Gods should not have their authority and values recognized by humans. So for shame to all the feminists and leftists who bandy about the stigma of "Islamaphobe" simply because they, one, hate Christians, and two, want to convert Middle Eastern people to collectivist socialism through appearing as friendly allies.
For the image I created above, the idea was that instead of strong-arm tactics at the Western borders, we would take a more passive-aggressive approach by simply covering the land and ourselves in pork products. I have absolutely no respect for religious doctrine and find it inhuman. Religion has the worst human rights violation track record of any institution ever (even worse than Communism). Although Communism has killed more people than religion, religion has been more enduring and created more misery overall.
The taboo nature of pork for Judaism and Islam is a bad joke. The reason to fear pork is that in ancient times, its preparation in the agriculture industry produced certain serious health risks. To avoid needless illness, society of the time used religious authority to get the message across that people shouldn't mess around with pork. The taboo nature of pork in religion is nothing more than a superstition and I will gladly mock it in order to knock even just one Muslim out of their brainwashed state and bring them up to date with the real world. I can't imagine any other way to challenge religious ideology in a friendly manner than through the use of humor.
Anyway, I continued to do a little humor across Voat, getting in on some of the Clown World Order stuff. I think that CWO was a good idea, but it is perhaps too programmatic to capture the hearts of conservatives. It is more a leftist tactic to do the same tired redundant attack on opponents. These kinds of attacks can be easily co-opted by opponents once proponents of the original movement begin to articulate their attacks poorly.
I made some colorful generalizations about the institutionalized self-pity of Indigenous Peoples, offering not only a logical analysis but some hope through productive solutions to the problem. I criticized the internet troll term, "lulz" as being laughter deferred - a kind of laughter that panders to the opinion leaders of the movement. I noted that this is a pitiful form of expression and affiliation. I laid out my terms for why I believe that most rape accusers are indeed victims yet also prone to finger-pointing those that are not the perpetrators. I provided advice to those in the academy who are suffering hardships due to feminist witch hunting. I suggested that they make liberal use of the only agency at the school that is impartial with respect to political ideology and which also protects people from religious-based leftist rackets.
I would say that all of this activity was content that would need to be in the Prolepticon and so I committed to moving my News Blog to the Prolepticon which is where it is now and will stay. This content is a little more on-the-nose and self-reflexive for the spirit of the Prolepticon but I will let it pass and perhaps review this News Blog in the future and decide to restructure it with some kind of narrative frame.
Part of my attack on illegal immigration was related to a recent story involving migrant ships trying to enter European waters but which were subsequently turned away. The ships were almost entirely young men, but the journalist reporting also noted that a woman had given birth during the voyage. It is absolutely clear that the immigrants have no conscience. They intentionally brought along an extremely pregnant woman despite having no proper supplies or even food to make the trip when considering contingencies and the possibility of being turned away from the first port of call. These are not energetic people that provide a Brain Gain for the West. These an unethical, uncivilized brutes - in effect they are monsters. To try to leverage your claim for asylum through sacrificing the well-being of a newborn child is unconscionable. There can be NO justification for this. The Leftist global-historical agenda does not come before the life of any child. There is no "greater good" to consider here.
Surprisingly, I was down-voted in a concerted way for promoting reading comic books (old Marvel X-Men) as a hobby. I can only assume that it was the rabid antisemites who came after me believing that comic books are an industry controlled by Jews. I believe that Chris Claremont was an excellent storyteller who had a relatively even approach politically when it came to writing about Marvel mutants. I disagree with denigrating any form of literature but I didn't start a flame way about the issue.
I made some comments in support of environmental awareness and the need for a concerted effort globally to reduce, reuse, and recycle. I also commented on Europe's history with alcohol, both its benefits and drawbacks. I played around a little bit with theories of global control making the novel suggestion that the Right conflates the actions of a historical cult (what is usually named Illuminati or NWO) with the anxieties of a religious ideology (what I call Radical Zionism, which can be distinguished from Israeli nationalism, Judaism proper, and traditional Zionism). Then I used that hypothesis about global control duopoly and prognosticated a doomsday scenario.
I believe that these more left-wing comments suit my overall balanced approach to politics and social media contribution.
I was then abhorred by learning about the phenomenon of "pozzing" and "bugchasing". It led me to re-articulate some of my theories on the origins of homosexuality in nature.
I tend to have high diction in my writing and a marked intellectual rhetoric. Many readers find it pretentious, arrogant, and insufferable. This isn't news to me, but the truth is that I am an intellectual and believe that it is in my best interest to express light bigotry through logic. Let readers interrogate the logic to prove my prejudice wrong. I'm always open to changing opinions once it is clear that I was misguided.
As I plan my exit from Voat, it is clear that my greatest usefulness to the community would have been through sporadic TIL contributions (Today I Learned). My current highest rated submission was for the Cato the Elder historical information and my highest rated comment was the information I provided the community about smallbeer (or tablebeer).
I'm not sure if I will return to Voat, and I am fairly certain that I will not return to Gab (I had been gone for well over a year and only posted a few more times recently because I had to wait to post on Voat until my comment contribution rating was high enough). If I post again on "free speech" platforms then those postings will also end up in the News Blog or the Prolepticon section (which is where you are right now).
The final thing that I should express about my adventures at Voat is that I have a much better understanding of the right wing now, especially radical isolationists and the Christian Right. I shared this insight with a friend who is a 3D thinker like myself. Now, I will share my insights here as well:
The Right wing political position and culture is an assembly of fragmented parts. Some of the factions are aware of this and urge unification. Yet, these fragmented factions tolerate each other unlike any other ethnic-based or religious-based group. Turkey has a long history of wanting to genocide Kurds, despite them being almost identical ethnically. It would be akin to an Englishman wanting to kill an Italian based on ethnicity. Europe simply doesn't operate this way and it takes religion to produce this kind of ethnic-based hatred (Bosnia-Serbia, for example).
The Right seeks unification and although they tolerate each other based around certain shared qualities (white ethnicity, moral values against degeneracy, anti-semitic conspiracy imagination), they are also unable to organize consolidated efforts due to important differences. There are a dozen unique political agendas in the Ideological Right political position. Yet, the style and rhetoric of all the Ideological Right is a distinct one. I truly believe that a large proportion of "hate crime" vandalism is perpetrated by terror groups such as BLM and Antifa who are trying to frame the Right. My experience with leftist ideologues is that they are not informed and not very intelligent. They hate their enemies so much that they refuse to get to know them and learn what they are about. The character and details of most hate vandalism is reflective of how Leftists imagine the Right, and not how the Right would ever represent themselves when making a show of strength through violent protest. The Right has a brand despite their fragmented nature - it is a paradoxical thing, but real nonetheless.
The anti-semitism seems all-encompassing and transcends the politics of the Ideological Right. The genuine perception is that all Jews are amenable to an elite class of Jew that is actively creating culture in a way that undermines wholesome family values. All Jews are winking and nodding approval for these cultural initiatives, and these cultural initiatives are executed largely through hegemonic control of other industries such as banking, media, and entertainment. I think that the real problem with the Ideological Right is that they don't properly understand ideology as a construct and psychology as a way to understand how people think and behave. Jewish culture and Christian culture are indeed mutually antagonistic but the attack on Christian values is not something that happens in Jewish living rooms as Jewish couples talk, nor does it happen in boardroom meetings at Jewish companies. It is all operating at an unconscious level.
Jews unconsciously desire whites to be neutered and that is a historically-determined imperative and it then pervades how Jewish culture develops. If a business or policy decision would have the end result of neutering whites then it feels right to most Jews and they support it not consciously realize what the effects will be. The way to deal with this is to make Jews aware that they fear whites and want them neutered. From there we can identify what it is about whites that evokes this fear and maybe white people can change in order to create a more cooperative relationship between Jews and Gentiles. Currently, the Christian anti-semitism simply acts to perpetuate the fear in Jews and keep them valuing the neutering of whites at an unconscious level in their psychology.
As for the Ideological Right, they are most concerned with moral degeneracy and they too have an acute unconscious recognition of what is happening... they understand that they are being systematically neutered but they can't articulate it properly to themselves or publicly. They can't explain the logistics because their irrational fear and hatred is in the way. Two peoples that are probably supposed to be friends and get along (no turning back now, guys) cannot do so and have those efforts stymied because unconsciously they fear each other and as a result privilege cultural and political initiatives that hurt the other.
The factions within the Ideological Right (as distinguished for all conservatives, which would include laissez-faire capitalists) are not always easy to deal with. The Christian Right faction is really difficult to work with. They do not listen to reason and all ideas for them must be cross-checked with two-thousand-year old scripture. They express themselves online with a marked lack of cosmopolitan sensibility which makes them come off as losers. They are uptight and hate-filled. They liberally attack their own guys (others factions of the Ideological Right, that is) and they will gang-up for petty retributions.
All of the factions see all white Europeans as "brothers", and the sense of white pride is distinct from the contempt of non-white. The reasons for why they love whiteness is not related to why they hate blackness, or jewishness, or arabness, etc. (however, the Christian Right faction is more susceptible to negative thinking). Most factions love whiteness for what is inherently good about it anthropologically and historically. The admiration of whiteness is a powerful seduction because it is fair. Whites are relatively well-bred unlike most other ethnicities.
On that point, Jews suffer from a lot of hereditary disorders (such as Aspergers Syndrome) that reflect too many generations having mated through inbreeding. The Japanese in having been isolated for five centuries also show marked physical-based signs of inbreeding. They did an experiment using photography several years ago where they wanted the "ideal" representation of each major ethnicity. They did composite photos that blended 100 portrait photos of separate men or woman from the distinct ethnicities. What was incredible to see in the final composite portrait was that the Indian (South Indian) male and female face were so much more attractive than when we see them in real life. But, there is a very simple explanation for this - the caste system in India has resulted in inbreeding that has made each caste less physically attractive than if they had been able to choose a partner from anyone of their ethnicity.
Finally, it is a tragic point to make, but after thousands of years of using Africans as slaves (African empires, Ancient Egyptian empires, Arab empires, European empires, and finally the United States) it has always been the slavemaster that is making the decisions for Africans on who will mate with who (at least for the highest stock of slaves). The choice of the slavemasters has been to privilege physical power attributes, and thus blacks have ended up developing accordingly. They are not as attractive as they would have been if they had been allowed to choose their own mates.
And so, white people have been both fortunate and wise to execute sound mating strategies, and as a result white people are on average very attractive (facial symmetry through lack of inbreeding, and more balanced hormonal profile through free choice on mates). These are not facts that can be debated unless your only interest is in removing truths that hurt feelings because you feel that hurt feelings could hurt the future. That's all speculative and based purely in affective imaginations. I am one who believes the pursuit of truth is already correct even if the truth hurts.
Coming back to the Ideological Right, I note that all of the factions despise "race traitors" and being labeled a traitor isn't about being white but having friends of different races, but instead is about procreating with other races thus diluting the white gene pool and also emulating the aspects of non-white cultures that are degenerate. The Ideological Right doesn't tend to go after whites who play saxophone in jazz bars or who dance samba at night clubs. Instead, they have problems with young white kids who think that hip-hop culture's values of promiscuity and glorified violence are admirable and "cool". Are they wrong? I can't stop putting on N.W.A. at the gym ever since I started listening back in 1992, but it is admittedly degenerate messages breeding pathetic and destructive community values. I'm fairly insulated because of my upbringing but poorer white families don't have the same luxury. My lessons in Compton gangrape were tempered by my lessons in European history, art, and science which I got at home and from the good schools I attended as a kid.
To the Ideological Right it seems unnecessary that white kids take the worst parts of other cultures and try to participate for street credit. The Right can't explain what possesses kids to do this except that media and entertainment push the idea that degeneracy is cool. Entertainment companies are almost entirely owned by Jews, ergo Ideological Right anti-semitism conspiracy theories. I think I should quote a recent post at Voat regarding the new movie Shazam:
"Shazam! is disappointing. It still has kike degeneracy propaganda. After the boy becomes Shazam, one of the first things he wants to do is to visit a strip club full of disgusting whores. Any 14 yo teen knows what a strip club is and that only perverts go there to lose their money like assholes. Hollywood just can't stop from turning everything into demented shit."
This might be difficult to read for some because of the clear anti-semitism, but it is also true statements about the content and ideology of the movie being objectively problematic. Why are we peddling these ideas to society? Why are we celebrating protagonists who have such low moral character? The movie Big with Tom Hanks showed us a wholesome kid once transformed into an adult body. Hollywood was still dominated by Jews in 1988 and Big's screenwriters were Jewish. So Jewish conspiracy doesn't make sense here at face value, but what changed in 30 years to make celebrations of depravity so popular or "cute"?
Coming back to poor white kids that are suckling the teat of a black gangbanger's pistol - peddling this degenerate culture is a mixed bag though because not all urban black music is degenerate. In addition, is the problem more one of laissez-faire capitalism? Capitalists will benefit from a secular approach to making money, and so for them the questions are not about morality but instead about profit - can entertainment moguls get blacks to think white is cool? No. Well, can they get whites to think black is cool? If so, then they will try to exploit that new market for economic gain. The neutering-fear hypothesis is only an underlying guidance in this case.
Is the shameless pursuit of capital gain degenerate? Sure, but you won't find many Jewish moguls curbing their business practices on behalf of the Christian Right when the Christians do nothing to stop the shameless charlatanism of evangelical churches.
The Ideological Right see most Leftists as clowns. The Leftist rhetoric is nonsensical and pervaded by fear - Leftists refuse to face their enemy eye-to-eye on honest terms. The Left will continue to fabricate who the Right are and what they represent as opposed to actually learning through getting to know the Right. As a result, the Right see the Left as a clown posse because the way the Left characterize the Right is pretty far off base. The Right isn't wrong in this regard - the Left is a clown show. The Left are prone to running into battle with wiggling fingers in their ears, eyes shut tight, and screaming at the top of their lungs
The problem between Right and Left is the following: the smartest people are more on the Right but not affiliated explicitly with Right wing factions (they are instead individualist socialist such as myself). The next smartest are on the Left (professional university academics). The next smartest are on the Right again but are now the cultural curators of the factions of the Ideological Right. The next are on the Left (university students). The lowest group is on the Right (poor under-educated religious types). And so all the match-ups are uneven. The cultural curators of the Right (like libertarian pundits on YouTube) can easily tear apart leftist university students, however they have little hope against university faculty. Meanwhile, university faculty can't shed the ideology that has been essential to validating their careers and so they don't wield the logic necessary to beat the top group (3D thinkers and individualist socialist who lean right). And so the Left never wins because they don't have the most effective arguments, yet the right doesn't win either because those on top can't abide joining the general cause. The reality is there is too much bigotry in the Ideological Right for someone like me to join and then lead. I would have to subscribe to ideals I don't find ethical (such as blanketed anti-semitism, oppressive Christian sexual repression, notions of absolute racial purity, etc.). I'm simply not that extreme in my views.
2D politics remains in deadlock.
Some of the factions of the Ideological Right deserve explicit mention. The libertarians are on the Ideological Right but ironically they self-identify as a form of "anarchist". Left-wing anarchists are more consistent with the philosophy of anarchism because they believe that there should be no governance and that the bar should be lowered to the point where everyone gets to feel that they are achievers. Libertarians in all honesty don't want this - they want a meritocracy, but one where the people decide what qualifies as achievement. In a truly libertarian state there is no governance unless there has to be because it supports the freedom to achieve. For leftist anarchists there is no governance ever.
For example, an ideal Libertarian state would spend community funds on building a wheelchair ramp at a construction site if a citizen was physically disabled but wanted to contribute to the building project, whereas true Anarchists of the left wouldn't have a construction project because it would alienate the physically disabled that can't contribute. To the anarchist, building the ramp would be problematic because it would make the engineer of the ramp more valuable than other members of the collective. It would only work if everyone in the collective knew how to make a ramp and was capable of making one. You can see that the ideal Libertarian state isn't pathetic whereas the ideal Anarchist state is.
In the example that I provided, the negative aspect of the ideal Libertarian state is that if the disabled citizen doesn't want to work at the construction site then no ramp is built and they can fend for themselves. There is no social welfare for non-contributors. It might be negative but some would say it's fair. Personally, I think life is unfair and that's why some people are stuck in wheelchairs. Nevertheless, Libertarians don't idly abide self-pity. Libertarians want non-achievers and non-contributors to get their just deserts of perishing - and this marks the philosophy as essentially a meritocracy, and not an anarchy.
There are new exotic factions in the Ideological Right such as the Identitarians. They are an odd melange of Nazi and Bolshevik. Personally, I don't understand how those philosophies can co-exist but I guess through micro and macro distinctions. At the macro level you hail only your people (Nazism) and then within that organization you do whatever you must to socially assist your people (Bolshevism). It will inevitably become an anti-meritocracy and so one can understand why some factions in the Ideological Right can't seem to unify (Libertarians desire fair meritocracy and Identitarians are against meritocracy).
Finally, the KKK guys are subtle within the broader landscape, but you can usually identify them pretty easily. In the past I have often referred to the Ideological Right as "Radical Isolationists", but after this report I may adopt the new title. The KKK were always at the core of what I considered radical isolationists. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, the KKK are not predominantly a terrorist group but I don't doubt that they involve themselves in matters that end up becoming terrorist attacks. Personally, I believe that the Mandalay shooting (Paddock) and Oklahoma bombing (McVeigh) had a vague connection to the KKK, but only in that KKK members were reaching out to Paddock and McVeigh to reign them in, focus them, and then direct the expression of rage and destruction.
Paddock and McVeigh were going to do what they were going to do no matter and I feel that the KKK got involved simply to make sure that it was a little bit more organized and targeted (primarily for the purposes of political manipulation). Another thing to note is that the KKK are organized as cells or chapters, and if what I am saying is correct about Paddock and McVeigh, it may have been only a single chapter or even a single KKK leader who was involving themselves in those terrorist actions.
For the most part, the KKK is simply a club for people who believe that halting moral degeneracy matters, and that moral degeneracy is most pronounced when different races share a national or global culture. If no white kid ever admired and emulated black gangbangers, and if no white kid ever watched tranny porn, and such, then I doubt the KKK would even exist because their members wouldn't see the point and purpose of organizing. The KKK try their best to inspire new members through messages of hope and uplift. They promote good diet, respect, fitness, and family. They don't do this as a machination to bolster their membership but instead they truly believe in those values.
Yet, they have an absolutely impossible time seeing strong moral values in the everyday lives of non-whites. It takes a non-white being outspoken about strong moral values for the KKK to recognize it. The KKK have an expectation that non-whites races work harder to clean up their own act if they are going to share space with whites. And this is the chink in the KKK armor because unfortunately the truth is that poor whites have a terrible problem with alcoholism, and spousal and child abuse that results from bouts of alcoholism. It doesn't get admitted to openly because white nationalists/radical isolationists have a rule that you never criticize your own kind because it is divisive. The white nationalist/radical isolationist website Stormfront makes this one of their top rules. To manage the hypocrisy, KKK/white nationalists/radical isolationists have to disavow blaming themselves for their unique race-based degeneracy and instead ascribe it as having been caused by interaction with other races. But, when it comes to alcoholism, that's just disingenuous to put the blame on non-whites.
KKK/white nationalists/radical isolationists are extremely casual about their contempt of blacks and almost never refer to them as anything better than "niggers". There are worse slurs used. At the same time, this faction is the core and heart of the Ideological Right because they believe in brotherhood and bringing all white people together in order to fight moral degeneracy globally.
It is difficult to remedy the inherent intolerance when considering that it provokes a subsequent passionate sense of acceptance. It takes being white (and maybe male also) to understand this I think. There are three separate statements to consider: I am proud to be white, I am proud to not be non-white, I hate non-white. To be KKK/WN/RI you have to subscribe to all three statements. Well I can easily subscribe to the first, while the second statement becomes complex psychologically, and with the third statement being one that I willfully reject. I can't be a member of the core of the Ideological Right (and in my case of any part of it) because I can't satisfy the three statements essential to the core. I'm alright with the affirmation, but only partially with the negation, and not comfortable with the opposition.
I have felt like Darwin on an expedition. I have done my survey and learned a lot (and made a lot of speculation) on the makeup of the Ideological Right. I know a lot about the Left already from having been in the university system for so many years. I feel that this adventure through Voat was important. You can't solve problems it you don't properly understand the positions of the groups that are fighting. And all workable solutions are mediations. I feel that I now understand better what the stakes are and what the possibilities are.
The real solution is to do as Cato the Elder did in ancient Rome. He shut down and crushed feminism (he proved it isn't hard once you have the resolve and have actually gotten started on the process). He also flagged Hellenistic tendencies - namely, he set up policies to stop the promotion of assimilation of foreign cultures into Roman/Greek culture, and discouraged the export of Roman/Greek culture to foreign peoples. Our future is in engineering and linear thinking. We must realign our culture accordingly. Immigrants should integrate to the host culture or leave. They can enlighten the host culture with their unique cultural sensibilities but they must recognize the host culture as dominant.
Jews must not continue with their fear and subsequent unconsciously motivated agendas to neuter Gentiles. There is a happy medium between Christian pyjamas and child cross-dressing. The inflammatory adversarial nature of the current relationship is unsustainable. We must reassert family values which protect children from moral degeneracy and media and entertainment must stop pushing moral degeneracy regardless of whether it is for capital gain or as part of a cultural initiative to neuter a peoples that provoke a powerful fear response. Socialists must be beaten into submission in the political arena. We require teeth put back into anti-trust law and an end to the laissez-faire aspects of our capitalist economy.
Those are some doable initiatives despite all of the other problems that don't have any solutions yet (such as personal debt and a lack of new jobs). The first step is to crush feminism. That doesn't mean taking away the rights women have gained. Feminism is about female superiority and right now a relative minority of women are trying an unprecedented thing that they were never able to attempt in the past - they want to be top dog. It isn't going to happen because the final shift for human-based industry is to launch the epoch of engineering. Even projected 10,000 years in our future it is still the epoch of engineering. Women will not be the top contributors in engineering overall and so we mine as well nip this feminist coup in the bud.
It was a valiant effort but more than half of women aren't sold on it. A quarter of women are formally resisting "4th wave" feminism or "fascist feminism" or "matriarchy" if you will, while another quarter are trying to pretend it isn't happening, another quarter have been wrangled into the racket through feminist bullying, and the final quarter are responsible for the whole mess. All we really have to do is crush one quarter of female bullies and liberate the other three quarters to live the way they want to live - taking the man's lead sometimes and respecting the man's judgment sometimes. Egalitarianism is about sharing leadership roles, not usurping the other half of the authority and claiming all of it to yourself. Cato the Elder recognized this and acted through taking away the showiest symbols of female privilege. I think that in our society we could achieve this by not hiring matriarchs and not publishing and celebrating their work. They don't believe in egalitarianism and they don't deserve our support.
The truth is that right now more than half of women are pervasively stuck in a fantasy mode of thinking. The quarter of women who would be matriarchs are really living their lives believing that this is war and they are going to win. We have to snap them back fast and in a public way.
Look at this video displayed below... and realize that I don't support physical violence against men or women, but still look at how quickly this woman got snapped back to reality when the man decided he wan't going to put up with the abuse. Her fantasy world of being the boss and the authority came crashing down. Now we all know that if women had the absolute authority they wouldn't share it (because of the matriarchs), but we also know that men will share it (and will relinquish being patriarchs). So then we must reassert that authority is going to be shared from now on. It is true that for most of history men had total authority (because industry was physical-based), but things have changed and the profile of work changed to allow women to be equal to men in production. But, that is as far as it goes - equality. Snap her back to reality with harsh, true words about what she is trying to do and how it is not going to pan out. There will be no Matriarchy.
This is what I want because I feel the gravity of the situation. If the would-be matriarchs continue with their push, then I can imagine the men and women who want equality will be pushing back very hard. Bashing on men has gone on long enough. It was never cute, but it was understandable. However, men are not the enemy and heteronormativity isn't an adversarial relationship. Matriarchy will not prevail. The Smackdown is coming because it is not just men that are fed up but also three-quarters of women.
So I guess I have a dog in this fight. I am an academic and am now halfway through my doctorate after two undergraduate degrees and a Master's degree in related disciplines. Although immersed in the toxic leftist campus environment, I have learned to be discerning when distinguishing dangerous dogma from idealistic provocation.
HUM 365 - Angry White Male Studies is a case in point.
I consider this course being offered by Professor Christopher Forth as idealistic provocation - somewhat heavyhanded in execution, yet intended to provide a lively discussion about a contemporary sociocultural matter of great importance that also has a storied history. More on that in a moment.
I find that being bombarded with leftist dogma through campus life as well as private research requires a measure of psychological homeostasis, and so I find it necessary to venture off into the far corners of the commercial web, including Heavy-R, THEYNC, BestGore, LiveLeak, Gab, and Voat. I tend to avoid 4chan related sites because they legitimately boast some skilled malicious hackers that you don't want to fuck with.
And so my academic writing tends to be markedly leaning left while my hobbyist writing ends up expressing as more conservative, with occasional flourishes of non-committal bigotry. I believe that it is important to forge mass media as a discursive formation rife with contradictions and quagmires. Expression should be unrestricted but it should be managed responsibly. What this means is that you allow people to express whatever they want, but you bury it deeper and deeper on your media service depending on how provocative and dogmatic it is (right and left).
It is also important to not judge a person by what they do in the virtual - the virtual is the "sandbox of the real" and a place for performance. It is a place to try out new things to see whether they suit you, or to exorcise some of your demons through abstracting them from your psychology and placing them into a public forum where you might reflect on them introspectively and decide if you would like them to be representative for your personality.
So with that personal statement off my chest, I will start by saying that the title of Prof. Forth's course is intentionally provocative and I find it unnecessary. If you are coming at it cold then it just looks like racist sexism. Who wants to be qualified through their sensational vice as a headline description? "Emotional black women", "Self-piteous Indigenous Peoples", "Callous East Asian men", "Miserly Jewish Couples", are not titles in the spirit of a democratic society, and although we may just be interrogating the stereotype and doing something productive through demystification it is still tactless and in poor taste overall.
I took the time to do a quick review of Prof. Forth's publication history and it seems that he is an accomplished scholar who has been focused on the issue of masculinity for most of his recent academic career. I will now provide some of my takeaways from having glanced (sincerely) at his work.
Males who are virile or who value virility shouldn't be construed as "angry" and if they are labeled this way, then this is a political-based issue. They are only angry as it informs a historical-based tradition of male values, and if "anger" is a descriptor being weaponized against men, and despite the fact that they may be provoking this in certain ways, it nevertheless is derogatory and ignorant to stigmatize men this way. Forth at least has the good sense to keep "angry white males" in quotation marks, so that some of us might consider it fair to interpret it as a sneer.
I took a stab in the dusk regarding the thesis of his course and settled on the following: European men were "feminized" (my own term) by new technologies over the centuries as industry shifted from factory-based work (physical labor) to service-based work (psychological labor). New forms of masculinity emerged with these industrial shifts and in many ways these new masculinities were not masculine at all (at least not with respect to testosterone and other biological factors determining expression - and therefore definition - of masculinity).
Yet, the new technology is what Western society chose to prioritize in order to progress our species with respect to expanded experiences of time and space (i.e. more fulfilling lives) - we wanted telecommunications, we wanted the internet, we wanted fast jets, we wanted efficient locomotives, we wanted fMRIs, we wanted vaccines, etc. The way we get to those technological advancements seems to have resulted in men working more intellectually/creatively/emotionally, and less viscerally in a physical way.
The "angry white male" exists because the new lifestyle of men is deemed effete and ineffectual. Living in accordance with the priorities of expeditious technological advancement actually has the effect of making many or most men absolutely miserable in critical ways. We feel useless as "men" and I suppose Forth is tapping the rather fertile "post-human" vein here.
With respect to the course description, I interpret the point of using post-structuralist lenses (feminism, post-colonial, etc.) as providing the point of collision where new ideas will be wrested from disparate dogmas of old and new - dialectic exorcism, if you will. Feminism on its own isn't helpful here, however neither are proto-modernist texts about phenomena such as the Nietzschean Superman. Only through the juxtaposition of old and new views can we forge a proper understanding of the diachronic historical poetic for the phenomenon of Western masculinity. Feminism and other "progressive" theoretical approaches have failed if they willfully label and stigmatize Western men as "angry white males", while Western men have failed if not coming to an understanding about why they are angry.
From experience, I think the students will be the real problem in this class and not the course instructor per se. Forth should also realize now that he will likely be secretly audited by impish libertarian social media pundits. Between the scrambled egg-brained undergrads and shit-for-brains radical isolationists, it is difficult to believe that an important subject will get its due. I imagine class discussion will be an echo chamber of "angry white females" with the occasional ethnic minority standing up for conservative values and getting lambasted for it. I've seen it all before. The soft sciences university classroom has become the unholy union of a circus show and padded cell. To experience it is akin to having fireworks blown up in your face - it's a rather unpleasant sensation.
I hope that it does go well, and truth be told, I wouldn't mind being a TA for this course.
For me, this news is redemption but also frustrating. I have been explaining how social media is a disease for a while now and have several articles and spoken words about the subject. Now, a legend of computer programming, Linus Torvalds, has expressed his disdain for social media platforms and how they operate.
As I have said, platforms like Instagram build addiction through manipulating neurotransmitter flow via the design and operation of the User Interface. I look forward to there being more news on this subject.
I am willfully linking content from my "Prolepticon" section in this News Blog page which I'm not totally comfortable doing given that the Prolepticon has an important waiver to explain its experimental narrative nature. However, I feel as if eventually, the News Blog may be moved over to the Prolepticon section.
Quebec TV Viewers' Choice Awards: Leftists complain that "viewers' choice" is a democratic process and they expect choice to be eliminated!
Quebec is a unique animal in the West, yet also incredibly typical. They have the demographic distribution profile that matches up with a lot of North American territories: a single very populated cosmopolitan urban center, a spattering of other urban areas, and then mostly towns in an overall rural setting. In this sense, Quebec is more like the Mid-West United States than it is like New England or California. Recently, the conservative party, CAQ, won the provincial elections and the voting distribution was provocative, to say the least. CAQ won the ridings everywhere in the province except Montreal, while in Montreal almost the entire city's ridings went to the Liberals except for where the students and Gay Village are located which went to the Socialists. The voting was so stereotyped as to become textbook.
But what makes Quebec unique in North America is the language barrier. Outside of Montreal people do not speak English with each other - they speak French. Within Montreal, there are neighbourhoods (such as Verdun) where most day-to-day interactions are done in French. Most Quebecois people are bilingual and Montrealer francophones are very competent in English. However, being a French province has insulated Quebec from a lot of the most effective leftist propaganda which of course is communication that happens in English.
I don't believe that any leftist rhetoric is effective because it is hypocritical and idealistic in an non-equitable way. However, sometimes there are enigmatic personalities who can spin a yarn that would make most people believers. Well, that skein of propaganda is usually unwound in English because it can reach the most people and because the most effective speakers might happen to be German, Swedish, Danish, etc. and they will require English to get their message to an international audience. Quebec isn't all that interested in messages in English and as a result the leftist mind-fuck usually falls on deaf ears in that province.
Personally, I think that there is a powerful lesson here about insulation from media agitprop.
Western cities have tried heterogeneity and it only works when individuals from communities want to adopt a new more cosmopolitan community within an urban center. The West has not been successful with globalized integration overall. I have always had friends of all colors and creeds, but they are almost always exceptional within their communities. My Chinese friends join a heterogeneous gathering while the rest of their Chinese contingent stay insulated in Chinatown. This is so much the case that Toronto has three distinct Chinatowns to serve a community that wants diversity - but only if it is Chinese. Most people just want to be with their own color and creed, especially when they are older or living in more remote areas.
Generation after generation there can be an accretion of individuals who leave the homogeneous and join the heterogeneous urban groups, but you can't force people to do this when they aren't ready. It's like pushing your kid in the water when they are apprehensive about their swimming motor skills, or pushing them toward a house cat when they are apprehensive about the size differential. The brief moment of drowning can create a lifelong phobia about the water, while getting scratched by a cat that sensed fear and distrust from the child can lead to a lifetime of hating and resenting animals. It isn't worth forcing people to accept what you are comfortable with.
So, that brings me back to Quebec and the recent headlines about the Quebec TV Viewers' Choice Awards. Some things worth noting: all of the young francophones I have met do not watch television, but they do admit that on the rare occasions that they watch it, then it is French-based shows. I believe that in Quebec, television viewers are most likely from outside Montreal and are older. In fact, here is some proof:
Quebec Market Overview - Broadcast Research Council of Canada
Notice in this official report from 2016, that Quebec television is watched twice as much by people over 55, then by youth who instead rely on the internet for their media. In addition, these Quebec viewers are entirely dependent on TV for their news and information (even more so than older anglophone Canadians). This would suggest that for this audience (older francophones), watching dramas is meant purely as a diversion and relaxation. They don't want an excess of politics on TV because they already get all of their politics from TV - it would be saturation and thus displeasure. As such, you can expect that they desire their dramas to be free from politics and political thinking. That's just sound reasoning.
Generally, the push for diversity is the push for elitism and superiority politically - in short, the push for power. White leftists want to be able to claim that they are the masters of cultural ideals - this is just whites being imperialistic again, but this time over culture as opposed to religion or geographic territory. Leftism is simply whites trying to be the Masters again and to call the shots on how change happens. If leftism worked in a non-hypocritical way then we would never hear a white voice, they would just be supporters standing in the background. The push for diversity is a political-based mandate and its stakeholders wield it in order to accumulate power.
The criticism of the Quebec TV Viewers' Choice Awards is that the results reflect a "popularity contest". Isn't that what "viewers' choice" means? But, kidding aside, those upset by the democratic process can have their logic transferred to many illustrative and colorful analogies. For example, what if I claimed that not voting Mr. Blue, (played by Eddie Bunker) from Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, as the best character from the movie makes you an ageist - you are against old people or at least want to marginalize them and cut them off from opportunities to be the focus of fanfare? This criticism is absurd. Bunker has a bit role and although his acting is good, it is Michael Madsen, Harvey Kietel, and Tim Roth that provide the strongest performances.
So let's not confuse things because the problem shouldn't be that people didn't vote for diversity when choosing their favorite characters from TV, but instead that the best roles didn't go to ethnic minorities. So what of it? Who is watching? Do they consider ethnic diversity relaxing or political? Given that it is political as part of the leftist agenda, then I wouldn't be surprised if the viewers experience it that way. And so, if these viewers want TV drama as relaxation, then it will need to be bereft of difficult political issues. If the left wants to push their leftist ideals then they can reach this audience through news and information shows which is where this particular audience chooses to be engaged with political thinking and political issues.
Again, this hubbub about the Quebec TV Viewers' Choice Awards is just leftists wanting everyone to do it their way because uniformity lessens their internal psychological agitation. "Watch TV the leftist way" - with politics pervading every message and every image. Leftists will not be relaxed until there is complete uniformity and no one thinks outside the box. They can't handle thinking done outside the box or a plurality of philosophical positions and this is because different ideas agitate their minds and produce psychological discomfort for them. Leftists are wimps who can't handle psychological discomfort - they are inherently over-sensitive. Their over-sensitivity is what defines them and everything else (political affiliation) happens after as an attempt to bring about homeostasis.
Well, it takes diff'rent strokes! And so, we should promote individualists, suppress leftist agendas that are only based in their freakish over-sensitivity, and we should gently coax the right away from extreme positions that reinforce their inherent under-sensitivity psychologically.
Forcing your kid into a lake or dropping Muffins on your kid's face while he's sleeping doesn't work. Water is good, swimming is good, cats are good, and animals are good, black actors are good, female leads on shows are good, but forcing people to participate in that knowledge prior to them being ready is bad and it has horrible consequences.
The logic of Blackstone's formulation applies here: it is better to have let ten indignant bigots go free then to force one open-minded person to be treated as a bigot. What this means is that we should just let people come around to a different way of thinking naturally and not through making them feel guilty, ostracizing them, or forcing them to have the things they enjoy altered to conform to how someone else wants them to enjoy those things.
Quebec TV viewers are old, rural-based, and they get their politics only from the television. Let them have dramas on TV that are bereft of politics. Tweak news and information shows to present your leftist diversity angle. I say this because diversity isn't a given as a good value - miscegenation has many benefits for wiping out hereditary diseases, however it also has a major drawback in that it produces a genetic monoculture. We know from agriculture that monoculture can lead to total crop devastation when that strain of crop is susceptible to a new environmental element whether it be a changing weather condition, a surge in the population of a particular parasite, or the existence of a new strain of bacteria or virus.
Let "mémère" and "pépère" have their "stories", and stop being ageists, through your failure to recognize and acknowledge the trauma that comes from older people being required to adapt when their brains no longer have the capacity for that kind of plasticity. Keeping older minds keen is very important, but not through provocation and agitation - work within their value system and at their pace. Leftists are ageists if they continue with this horseshit about diversity in dramas on Quebec TV. I understand that the Leftist position is taken-up only through ignorance and lack of rational thought and lack of capaciousness mentally, but in this instance they are intolerant ageists all the same.
This isn't so much a news item like the rest of what's on this news blog, but instead is just a quick note on mainstream media and their propaganda which willfully conflates free speech and hate speech. For more on this, see my article about Voat and Gab.
Mainstream media follows a syllogism (illogical reasoning) to explain free speech platforms in social media:
Racists use Free Speech Platforms,
You are using a Free Speech Platform,
Therefore you are a Racist.
This reasoning is fallacious with respect to logic. To believe that using a free speech platform means you are a racist is an irrational belief. By that token, such a stigma is a hate crime and harassment under the definitions subscribed to by leftists. Of course, we can't forget that leftist ideology provides carte blanche for hypocrisy as long as it furthers the crusade (most religions do this actually). But I will play this out just a bit more to hopefully get my point across.
What if I said this… because there is rape out there in the world and people are getting raped all the time including children, no one is allowed to have sex anymore.
Safe to say that absolutely everyone would think this is preposterous… unfathomable. Must be a joke. I'm crazy.
Racists say racist stuff and rapists rape. I don’t claim that people having sex are rapists just because rape is a sex act, so don’t claim that for using a free speech platform I'm a racist just because racism is a free speech act. This leftist accusation is intentionally provocative and is meant as a stigma. The Left is chuffed about stigmatizing actual free speech advocates because we are the real danger to their cause - we astutely point out the gibberish in their statements and the nonsense in their belief system.
In addition, true free speech advocates are anathema to leftists because we have individual thoughts and ideas about the world while the goal of collectivist socialists is to render society uniform in order to reduce stimulation and alleviate the psychological burdens the over-sensitive wimpy Leftists experience by nature when something unique or different pronounces itself upon their sensations.
But what about those of us who actually just want free speech? We aren’t trying to make racist statements or bigoted remarks, we just don’t want power-hungry people who are less moral than us deciding what is allowed to be said. Do you really believe the people that Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. hire are qualified to determine what is a fair statement?
At best, these employees have MBAs and more likely have BAs in commerce and marketing. They are not Doctors of Philosophy and they are not civic heroes, and as such they are not trained or qualified to censor citizens. Likely many or most of them actually qualify as sociopaths. The kind of personality that strives for control is exactly the people who shouldn't be granted that control. This is an age-old lesson that we continuously ignore. The kind of aggressive, mean-spirited people that push to get lucrative positions in the tech-based culture industry (i.e. social media) should not be determining the moral standards of society, or deciding what a "reasonable person" thinks.
The media should be held accountable for purveying dangerous propaganda that ostracizes and marginalizes individuals through an established logic that is purely based around a syllogistic fallacy. The logic of Holocaust deniers is identical to the logic of free speech deniers. They each take something unrepresentative and claim that it is not only normative but defines the phenomenon entirely.
As for me, I have decided to walk away from social media entirely and just focus on this new News Blog, however I know that I encountered great thinkers in my times using Voat and other social media platforms. Some of the guys at Voat are a million times more impressive than my fellow PhD colleagues. They are fair and reasonable and have an incredible grasp of what is at stake when Right and Left are allowed to hijack culture in order to battle it out across their pathetic 2D ideological plane.
The latest on Joe Biden's inappropriate cajoling with female colleagues and their families has me in a bit of a pickle...
I had seen videos of Biden being a little too touchy-feely years ago, and I thought of my father and how he is with my sister's kids. I love my father and do not believe for a moment that he would hurt kids. My sister and I are a testament to that. However, he misses having kids and he especially misses having a little girl to protect. He can be quite touchy-feely and silly with my sister's kids with respect to ga-ga-goo-goo sentimental talk or stroking hair or kissing foreheads, and such.
I've never seen anything that made me go, "that's not right." But the behavior is fucking annoying, lame, awkward... and yes, maybe even cringe. But he means well, he is just old and that's how he is expressing a great loss and void in his life. He wishes he could be a dad to kids again. I think I would feel similarly given that once people hit pubescence they become selfish pricks, and your love and affection for them has to be altered.
Anyway, is this an apologist account for Biden. Nope. Why? Biden is being touchy-feely with grown ass women that are merely colleagues and not family members or lifelong friends. That is fucked up dude and any normal person should know better without even referring to feminist outrage culture (i.e metoo). He overstepped. But I only opened with my personal account because fools like Paul Joseph Watson don't know how to filter their arguments so that their position is constructed from only strong premises. Watson's recent video interrogates the minutiae of Biden's affectionate behavior lumping everything in as part of a Pizzagate conspiracy. Watson is not a strong leader for the Right and he weakens their position.
Biden's repeated comment about the age for women to date is a hangover from fatherhood. He's probably just a little Aspergery and wants to avoid further complications from expressing his feelings with kids and so he falls back on what he feels is a cute and pat remark about parent's priorities and family values. Ok, he got it wrong... we get it. His behavior is straight-up wrong for being so liberally spread and with sexually mature adult women. There's no apology for him overall.
But none of what has happened means he is sending secret emails to James Alefantis for cheese pizza parties and none of what has happened means he is at art auctions with the Podesta brothers. If pizzagate is real then it is going to be much like all pedophile rackets - incredibly secretive where a buffer of unsuspecting friends are intentionally put around the perpetrators. You think they want to get caught? They require a ratio of at least 10:1 non-sexual-deviants around them so that when they are caught, the whole network doesn't collapse and expose everyone. They'll lean on duped friends as reliable character witnesses.
Why do you think the Roman Catholic Church went down so hard? - No buffers! Too many deviants and not enough normies. They couldn't weather the storm of accusations because they didn't have sufficient support. Their next best character witness was also a raping child diddler of the cloth.
I definitely want all diddlers hung by their scrotum and gutted not-so cleanly... so don't be mistaken about my attitudes toward the issue of harming kids.
However, I have noticed right-wing "free speech" platforms lighting-up with excitement over a Democratic presidential candidate getting thrown under the bus and exposed as "not as bad" as Donald Trump.
But, while the right-wing celebrates their victory they are greatly enabling feminist outrage culture. With a consolidated outcry against Biden, the Democratic caucus will have to conclude that male candidates and male representatives generally are a bad idea. Stand aside, cuck and let a woman fix this mess men created! That will be the battle cry now.
I don't want to choose a side here where I have to either defend Biden or condemn him, because the former is untrue for how I feel and the latter enables the worst, most dangerous and most hypocritical group (well no I guess Vereniging Martijn is the worst in the West) - one of the worst then.
The proper reaction for non-Leftists is to assert the values of good men who think introspectively and contemplate their actions wisely? Yet, are not all people that fit that description also pervasively wary of collectivist organization? No wonder this promotion isn't happening then.
How can good people win when part of being good is not becoming a mob? How can we beat mobs as individuals? These are bigger, more profound questions to consider.
In the meantime the notion of good men falls by the wayside to make way for the charge of irate radical feminists who receive only cheers from the Right in support of their initiative to remove Biden from contention. They don't care why the right-wing is condemning Biden, it just makes it easier for them to remove all non-cuck males from the party's highest positions.
Meanwhile, the Right is so blind as always that they can't see what is happening. Their response to my accusation is a resounding "nuh-uh, cuz muh pizzagate".
You don't have to support Biden against feminist attackers, but maybe just stay out of the whole affair. The Right needs to learn when to shut the fuck up and let their enemies auto-cannibalize.
What we are seeing is the Right's inability to defer instant gratification. This is ironic because the radical isolationists and Christian Right are quick to purport that the problem with homosexuals is that they don't defer instant gratification when it comes to sex, and that young blacks don't defer instant gratification when it comes to crime, and that socialists don't defer instant gratification when it comes to complaining. The hypocrisy is rich here.
You will know the army not worth fighting for when they begin to march in opposite directions.
#pizzagate #feminism #potus
The Strange Case of Jussie Smollett is fresh in people's minds, but how many of you remember the even stranger and agonizingly drawn-out case of O.J. Simpson? (not to mention agonizingly drawn-out car chase which initiated the subsequent scandalous trial)
You remember O.J., right? Well, after being a sports hero for black and white youth (especially black), he then murdered his wife and her lover. He got off, so I guess that means it's libel to say he did it. So, let's just say... if he did it.
The reasoning for the acquittal that was never expressed to the masses because it was politically incorrect was that the black riots that would have ensued if O.J. was convicted would have led to more deaths and destruction than just letting the poor bastard off.
The government was not confident that blacks would act rationally and instead it was feared that they would lash out like wild animals, rioting in the streets because THE MAN had unjustly taken down one of their great heroes and inspirations.
And so O.J. got off.
But, the humiliated LAPD that played the fool in the kangaroo court trial never forgot how it felt to let a brutal murderer walk (oh sorry, "if" the LAPD had felt that way). So, law enforcement decided to do something about O.J.. He was going to do time one way or the other (probably under threat of vigilante death and all through vigilante channels). These police now acting as unsanctioned vigilantes drugged O.J. up and sent him in with a gang of patsies for a robbery that could never have gone right.
That's my narrative and it is unofficial. It is what makes sense to a rational mind, but admittedly sometimes people and groups (and weather even) can be unpredictable or irrational, so I will submit that my narrative could be subject to the whims of luck and fortune, and that perhaps what seems self-effacing logically is just my aberrant decoding of the events based on a lifetime of understanding what happens regularly in the real world. Maybe O.J.'s "real" story is actually an uncanny "what if" tale, where the events were more like a fantasy, and to be honest what rational person would have expected this? Yet amazingly...
Well here is a fact - O.J. served 9 years for the robbery and this is likely the time (give or take a few years) that he would have actually served for the double homicide (given it would have been argued as a "crime of passion" and that it was tried in liberal California).
I sense that the court officials in the Smollett case used the same rationale as the courts in the O.J. trial. It was rationalized irrationally that Smollett's conviction would lead to civic unrest such that greater destruction would be wrought by the public as a reaction to what they felt was government coercion and corruption.
Why do I feel this way? The police are irate about Smollett's acquittal. From my experiences and knowledge of police it is against their culture to speak out as outraged victims, and they wouldn't do so unless the circumstances really mattered to them. In the last decade, American police have been effectively smeared from state-to-state and under incredible scrutiny by the public, so I can't see why they would pick this battle if it wasn't a worthy cause. That's my reasoning without having read the disclosure or witnessed the trial.
But what if I'm not just some soothsaying kook? And what if I am correct and what if what I have written is true, namely that courts "weigh" the potential community backlash against meting out justice according to jurisprudence and ethics?
We need to expose this rationale and interrogate it to be sure that it isn't a factor in criminal trials. We proactively test adults to make sure they don't have cancer. We proactively test children to make sure they don't have learning disabilities. These are progressive wise moves. So perhaps under that guidance we can proactively test society to make sure that its justice system (in effect an immune system) isn't riddled with some kind of immunodeficiency virus. What's the harm? It's good to get regularly checked for problems of the body, so why not also the civic body and its vital organs?
Would anyone have rioted in Smollett's case? Would anyone care about Smollett being convicted? Did the court officials reason that Smollett's acquittal was the ethical thing to do because they irrationally concluded that his conviction would lead to public disorder?
How many celebrities (from A-lister down to the reality show star) experience this kind of rationale from officials when they commit crimes and are caught and tried? We know that they get away with murder the way regular citizens do not. Venus Williams, Bruce Jenner, Rebecca Gayheart are just the characters I remember and individuals who caused fatalities while driving recklessly and who subsequently received slaps on the wrist for the lives they destroyed. But there is one character that makes all of my speculation not so circumstantial.
For me, Michael Jackson was an obvious pedophile long before it became mainstream headline news. When media keyed-in on his budding friendship with child actor, Macauley Culkin, it was difficult to not feel wary and uncomfortable. I grew up loving Jackson and his musical history became my personal history because of moments like when my older sister covered my eyes at the end of the Thriller music video to buying a VHS tape of Moonwalker to adulation about the release of the Dangerous album, not to mention going back and enjoying the Wiz as well as Jackson 5 pop-soul anthems. It was music I shared with friends and music that society shared around the world. It was devastating to have to admit that he was a bad guy (similarly to older generations than me wrestling with the idea of O.J. as a villain).
But then, quietly police released reports a few years ago about what they found in their search of Neverland Ranch. It was frightening and yet most people still willingly turned away in order to preserve their image of Jackson as a music icon (just like Bill Cosby as a TV icon, or Simpson as a sports icon). The police found evidence in Jackson's home that revealed Jackson was a pedophile. He had collections of bizarre and grotesque pornography where child heads had been cut out of images from magazines and then attached to adult bodies engaged in sex acts. It means he was a pedophile but didn't necessarily imply he was a molester or rapist.
The police had sat on their findings and then even after releasing their reports, the public then sat on their condemnation. It took a documentary movie with detailed testimony by Jackson's victims to then have the public finally accept the reality and with the long trial period (like Simpson) strong feelings had quelled to the point that many people acted as if the news was a moot point - Jackson had already been elevated to the music heavens as a pop god regardless of who he had been as a human being. Barbra Streisand let her yellow and red Pizzagate colors show by making unconscionable public statements insinuating that Jackson carefully picked out kids who were obviously weird, gay, queer, whatever... and who were "interested" in being sexual with a sick grown man. I'm sure Streisand's fans will run to her defense... I hope they all trip and fall on sharp objects.
The story of Bill Cosby is similar in that Hollywood knew about Cosby's raping ways more than a decade before the public would accept an outcry by his victims. You see, Cosby was so pathological that he vetted his victims very carefully and chose women that had poor reputations in the entertainment industry. He realized that for these women to call him out they would be destroying careers that they sorely needed. Not a new story for sex predators really.
O.J., Cosby, Jackson all had their crimes drawn-out or covered-up long enough that by the time we realized the truth there wasn't a fear of public unrest. Or is it the other way around... when the accusation is fresh then the fear of public unrest resulting from condemning the beloved perpetrator is an acute one, and we must draw things out and wait until irrational rage subsides?
Jackson hurt those kids years ago. It's over now. What is the point of convicting him and then having dozens of fans commit suicide or hundreds of fans commit to vandalism or looting? I contend that this is how court officials reason and that it is counter-justice. You cannot hypothesize what-ifs, and instead you have a duty to prepare the public for the reality that there are good reasons for why they should truly never meet their heroes.
This rationale about devotees of scum requiring placation through miscarriages of justice is complete horseshit, but if it doesn't get called out it will continue as a status quo method for judgment within the criminal justice system. And we can see the dangers through the Smollett case because Smollett is a relative nobody compared with Jackson, Cosby, and Simpson. His conviction would not have resulted in adequate chaos to merit an acquittal. Yet, because outrage culture has become so ubiquitous through the Global Village of mass social media, officials are becoming confused and their judgments are skewed. They are not fit to judge until they get a dose of reality about how influential outrage culture actually is (it's mainly ineffectual in the face of the rule of established, stable institutions).
In fact, I believe that conjuring fear about public outrage is an excuse that enables court officials to decide outcomes based on personal bias. I believe that this is what happened in the Smollett case. The only solution is to openly interrogate the court system on the distinct point that irrational rationale could be influencing judicial decisions. Always check for cancer because once it has crept up on you, you are a goner.
Are you Triggered Yet?
#justice #hollywood #pizzagate
I'm still trying to figure out the fate of Bitcoin...
Cryptocurrency parallels the video game industry in important ways. Early on, Atari was the hegemon (much like Bitcoin) but the company tanked and part of it was that Nolan Bushnell (Atari's founder) was a bit of an old school charlatan who had colluded to circumvent zoning restrictions on arcade game distribution. Bushnell secretly founded his competitor company which then started the zoning violations thus making Atari's infractions simply a necessary capitalist-based measure to remain competitive. Violations were then assured and Bushnell could expand his empire.
However, Nintendo took over the industry in the mid-1980s and never looked back. Part of the way that they secured their future was through certification seals for their games. The seal was mainly for show but it remedied the major mistake made by Atari, namely producing shoddy games but marketing them as high quality fare (see, E.T. game burial site).
So, is Bitcoin an Atari?
I suppose that the value of Bitcoin would never drop below 3000 USD because of the hardware infrastructure of the business itself. You could liquidate that industry and the value would probably justify a 3K pricing per Bitcoin as the currency was dismantled. Of course, that would be a planned demolition and who is to say what the value of Bitcoin would be if individual investors each took more radical means to bail out and abandon ship.
I recently read that they launched a Cryptocurrency stock exchange and I suppose that this would be the best thing to invest in provided that the cryptocurrency that wins the war of attrition doesn't reject that exchange and set up its own (like Nintendo with its certification seals).
Also, Bitcoin was always the top dog that everyone was talking about, especially laymen and curious parties. Perhaps, cryptocurrency regulation and the forging of client trust works better when there are two big daddies, much like Marvel and DC in the comic book industry. Ironically, earlier today someone mentioned this idea of duopolies to me also citing, Apple/Android (smartphone), Coke/Pepsi (soda pop), and Mack/Peterbilt (commercial trucks) as big daddies that stabilized their respective industries.
Cryptocurrency seems quite iffy and unstable right now (understatement of the new millennium). I do have a sense that Bitcoin is the Atari and that we need to wait for the Nintendo to pop up on the scene. I thought that this might have happened after David Solomon took over as CEO of Goldman Sachs. Solomon seemed like the type of eccentric rogue (a more conscientious Elon Musk type character) that could forge new avenues for crytocurrency through using his investment company as a kind of "certifier" for Bitcoin investments and trading. Admittedly, I know very little about economics and crytocurrency even more so, but Goldman Sachs hasn't made any overt overtures toward regulating cryptocurrency since Solomon assumed the chief position.
Although I know little about cryptocurrency, I do know something about the way the mining works, and at present crypto mining is a spurious enterprise to say the least. It is a system that if juxtaposed to the Gold Rush of mid-to-late 19th century. would be akin to the lowly panhandlers becoming the richest benefactors of the enterprise. But, the richest during the gold rush were those that already had capital and who could afford a large crew, supplies, explosives, etc. Individual-based panhandling along the river banks was modest earnings. At present, cryptocurrency is all panhandlers that expect to become billionaires. This fantasy thinking is unsustainable ideologically and it will make big players in banking and investment apprehensive about getting involved in the market. Why would the currently resourceful investors in the world join along with relative plebs and thus shift the balance of power while vastly increasing the distribution of wealth? What is the incentive for them - that it is the currency of the future? Not good enough.
When a new crytocurrency pops up that big players are excited about and which has reliable methods of regulation and self-regulation that effectively safeguard against charlatans and beggars from turning the economy into a lottery, then I would say invest in that crypto, but until then just hang onto your money and accept being fleeced by banks for the time being.
Here is an incredibly important article to read regarding Bill 21 that is being pushed through by the CAQ for provincial legislature in Quebec.
I am not endorsing the entire article, however there is one point that is unassailable as an argument about basic human rights.
The journalist points out that for Persian women who escaped the tyranny of Iranian theocracy under the Ayatollah, that to then have one's freedoms and opportunity decided by individuals who honor the oppressive measures used as weapons against women becomes a traumatic experience - in short, it is not within the spirit of democracy.
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment and sensed this as the core issue years ago when I first saw the image above. Tens of thousands of Persian women in 1979 flooded the streets of Tehran to fight for their rights as a gender. Their attitude and actions was no different than Western suffragettes a century earlier.
Communism/feminism is a nefarious ideology which has a missionary purpose and therefore forms a religious institution for its proponents and followers. The Left has never had success converting the Middle East and Islam, but finally through the Global Village of mass social media, they feel that they can sink their hooks into an untapped human resource that may swell their ranks and allow them to become the hegemonic political power globally. They cannot afford for Islam to view the West as an unfriendly antagonist and so for the sake of their overzealous crusade they create the stigma of "Islamaphobia" and try as they might to plaster it all over anyone who believes that Islam is an oppressive, medieval religion.
The leaders of the Left know full well that Islam is corrupt and oppressive and misogynistic, except they don't care two wits about it because the end game is to convert Muslims to communism (or perhaps we should just say collectivist socialism given the great plurality of shit-for-brains ideologies currently pervading the Leftist political position).
Muslims women are temporarily thrown under the bus by feminists and are allowed to suffer under abhorrent patriarchal sharia law as absolutely demanded by scripture and clergy of the Muslim faith.
There has been no moderate schism in Islam and it is truly a medieval religion. For Christianity, the Reformation was a progressive schism whereby Martin Luther argued that the devout should be rational in their faith through having direct engagement with scripture. The major schism in Islam (Shiite/Sunni) happened at the onset of forming that religion and it did not create a more moderate and rational sect. Muslims have made no concerted attempt to revise the Koran and produce new volumes that are consistent with promoting healthy human values - instead the Koran remains the guiding text for the faith and is riddled with lessons about a woman's role as servant, a child's status as sexual partner, and the foreigner's role as enemy.
Although the Bible is also an old text out-of-touch with what we understand humanity to represent, the New Testament at least attempts to bridge a gap from the Old Testament's disheartening wrath of God parables. Furthermore, as Christianity has reformed, there have been sects that actually go completely against the literal word of the Bible, and some churches have an open acceptance to female leaders, homosexual leaders, homosexual congregation, etc.. Islam has yet to show a desire to be more easygoing about the "letter of the law" as etched in scripture.
I believe that an elderly Muslim woman would be genuinely distressed and traumatized by having to remove her religious garb or other symbols that represent her devoutness to her faith. The brainwash is complete for her and her practice of misogyny and servitude to men is not a neophyte expression - it is her fundamental lifestyle. However, young Muslim women who live in a democratic nation have the right to be protected by their government. Millions died over centuries across many nations to secure those kinds of rights. Most young Muslim women would choose not to wear head scarfs when the men don't have to wear them. They would choose to be able to do what the men can do, and the West through blood, sweat, and tears fought for women to believe that this attitude is correct.
Do we now forego freedom temporarily because the Left has more insidious plans for integrating Islam into its collective? Despite it being an unconscious drive, I'm still afraid that we cannot abide this collectivist socialist programme, and for shame to all the leftists that believe their position is acceptable, or even righteous. There is no waiting period on freedom so that one political faction can have an ideal chance at converting new members to their cause and congregation. There is freedom now in free countries. And so I support Bill 21 provided that it distinguishes the age of the citizen affected. I would say that the average ago of a new mother marks a woman as likely to have been fully incorporated into a patriarchal system if that is the cultural dominant for that particular society/community. That then should be the age used to make religious symbols optional.
If grandma wants to wear her niqab in court then let her because you actually make things worse by distressing her and pushing her away from the West and back toward medieval Islam. However, you also can't make it optional for younger women because don't forget that they live in oppressive patriarchal communities and families, and they don't get to choose. If choice is the mandate then it is the man who is choosing for the woman in Muslim communities. Instead, the state asserts democratic rights with a "grandfather clause" for those who are understood as already entrenched in the pervasive inequities of their faith.
If we felt for a moment that young Muslim women appreciated the patriarchal dictates of their faith then we might back off, but we need only look at Iran before and after the revolution in 1979 to know that women were enslaved by the doctrine of Islam. The West lost a million Americans to stop slavery, how can the West now reverse that? For shame on all of the feminists that put aside the current injustice because they see a brighter future for their faction a few decades from now. They do not get to circumvent the actual rights we attained for the potential gain of their ideological-based faith.
#islam #feminism #bill21 #canada
Catchy headline right?
So actress Michelle Williams is storming capitol hill with her dossier of grievances regarding underpaid FEMALE actors in Hollywood.
But, is she the appropriate person to take up this cause?
I could imagine NHLer Evgeni Malkin being irate at being paid 1% of Sidney Crosby's salary given that Malkin is a top performer... he puts butts in the seats at arenas.
On the other hand, actress Michelle Williams is so unremarkable and undistinguished as a marquee draw in Hollywood that she isn't even the top result for "michelle williams" searches at YouTube and on much of the web (that honor goes to the Destiny's Child member).
A message to feminists - if you want to convince anyone of anything you have to keep your arguments rational and reasonable. (just call this rule Mansplaining 101)
Michelle Williams, you ain't Wahlberg. Wahlberg is awesome. You ain't the Rock. You ain't Margot. You ain't Charlize. You ain't nobody and you are a dime a dozen actress.
Ever since media piracy became status quo about 20 years ago, the movie industry started to tighten its purse strings. There are tons of actors, male and female, who don't get paid much if they aren't A-Listers. Many will work pro-bono or at least for a modest per diem rate.
Also, maybe Wahlberg has amazing representation and a team of agents that go to bat for him aggressively every time. Acting salary isn't considered in a vacuum when it comes to Hollywood. It is a "what have your done for me lately" wheeling-and-dealing cutthroat environment. Hollywood has been built on a heteroscedastic economic model since the Paramount Decrees and if people like Williams get their way then there will be no competitiveness in Hollywood and all movies will become low-budget melodramas because risking anything else would be suicide for studios.
Finally, apparently Wahlberg gave to charity those particular earnings that Williams has put into question... so for shame, Williams, you nobody!
LowBrowsing News Blog
I lost interest in Twitter back in 2012. I tried "free speech" platforms recently but found them wanting.
LowBrowsing Art Blog
check out art blog...