Tag Archive | progressives

The Assumption Liberals Make

Elements on the left seem increasingly zealous about whether Trump was, perhaps, friendlier with Russia than they want him to be, but I’m not really interested in whether the increasingly desperate attempts to engage Trump and Putin in a bromance is based on truth or some mutated psychosis leftover from the Cold War. Actually, I’d say that Cold War paranoia is more like AIDS, because AIDS isn’t actually the cause of death for HIV sufferers–some other disease infects them due to their severely weakened immune system, and this disease is what kills them. So the Cold War paranoia is the AIDS that made us susceptible to this weird, virulent strain of “Them Damn Russians!”

But whether we’ve got a severe AIDS infection or whether we have cause to distrust Trump’s Russia connections isn’t of much relevance until another question has been answered: Why should we care if Trump has these alleged connections?

The first contention is that we should care because Trump is close to the country that subverted our democracy by interfering in our election. At best, this ranks among the most dubious claims that I’ve ever heard. The leaks ripped the DNC into pieces, but progressives have benefited from that as much as Trump did, so unless they’re guilty of the same collusion (in fact, irate Sanders supporters have at least as much motive as Trump–“Oh, hello, Seth Rich!”), the claim appears to be nothing but “You possibly benefited from this, so you’re guilty of collusion, and even though we provably benefited, we’re not guilty of collusion.”

Even if we assume that all of the Democrats’ bizarre claims are true, it still doesn’t answer the question of why I should care. Hillary was no better suited to be President than Trump, and that some people are willing to eat a plate full of dog vomit over a pile of festering shit is of no consequence to me, and certainly not reason for me to get mad that more people (by the weight of the political rules we all agreed to beforehand) scarfed down a helping of turds.

Even if Trump only won because of these ties to Russia (which, again, we’re assuming are true), so freaking what? If you’re going to hold up electoral processes as wonderful, quasi-magical things that must be insulated from influence of the outside world, and whose integrity must be beyond reproach, I’d take your claim more seriously if you hadn’t spent the last six months rioting because you didn’t get the election result that you wanted.

Until actual evidence has been put forward–something more than a laundry list of “He Said, She Said” bullshit–and as long as we live in a place where one of the great social principles is that one is innocent until proven guilty, it follows that the only people undermining the integrity of the election are the Democrats. Mind you, this is after Jill Stein’s recount attempts showed no disparity at all with the results.

So let’s be clear about this. It’s not “The election” that democrats are claiming was influenced. The vote totals were not changed via Russian meddling, and, to my knowledge, only the most uninformed and absurd progressives are making such claims. For the greater part, what liberals actually mean when they allege that Russia influenced the election is that Russia influenced voters.

Again, I must ask: “So?”

By the Constitution of the United States, an American voter has the immutable right to not only believe whatever the hell they want, but also (an extension modern liberals gloss over) to act in accordance with those beliefs. It doesn’t matter if Bob votes for Trump because he’s a Christian, as is Bob, and if Bob was convinced of Christianity by Americans or by Russian Jesuits. Why Bob believes what he believes is his own business, not ours, and we can’t threaten that without also curtailing his right to believe what he wants.

So, too, if Jim voted for Trump because he believes Hillary is the worst thing since gonorrhea, it’s not of any relevance to us whether he believes that because of the “documentary” “Clinton Cash,” because of the DNC Leaks, because of Wikileaks, or because he was taught to be Republicans by his parents and never looked any further. He cast his vote, and his reasons for doing so may be whatever he wants. Maybe he doesn’t like Hillary’s hair, or maybe he finds Hillary to be somewhat more psychopathic than the unpredictable Trump.

Whatever his reasons are, they are his reasons, and the alleged beauty of the American political system is that he gets the same number of votes to express his values as does anyone else. It’s fine that liberals would disagree with his reasons–either because they believe those reasons are factually incorrect, or they believe that one should value other things–and it’s fine for them to express this disagreement through the one vote that they each have.

What’s not okay is attempting to erase Jim’s vote because one disagrees with the beliefs he holds that led him to vote the way that he did. I notice there’s no criticism of the people who only voted for Hillary for stupid, demagogic reasons, or for equally asinine reasons like “Well, she’s the first female candidate!”

The liberals, it seems, don’t want to erase every vote that was based on reasons with which they disagree (since “She’s the first female candidate!” obviously flies directly in the face of the claim that “Gender shouldn’t matter,” the basis they use for criticising Trump supporters who voted for Trump because he’s a man), but only those for the other candidate with which they disagree, and, let’s be honest here, that’s basically all of them, because the entire fucking rift exists because liberals and conservatives value different things.

Is there such a thing, to the Democrat, as a good reason to vote for Trump? If there is, I’ve yet to hear a Democrat acquiesce that point.

You voted for Trump because you liked his expressed opinions on immigration? No, that’s illegitimate, you racist bastard.

You voted for Trump because you preferred his probable tax policy? No, that’s illegitimate, you elitist fool, dick-riding the rich.

You voted for Trump because you didn’t like Hillary’s arrogant and sociopathic demeanor? No, that’s illegitimate, you sexist pig.

You voted for Trump because you liked his abortion stance? No, that’s illegitimate, you fascist, because people have the right to convenient abortions.

The conservative/liberal rift occurs long before the candidates are chosen. The point of the presidential debates is not for the Republican candidate to entice Democrats, or the Democratic candidate to entice Republicans. Even independents are rarely swayed by such things. People simply don’t operate that way. Most have their value system and will vote for whoever best fits with that value system, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats is so large that there is almost no crossover. How many people voted for Trump because of Wikileaks or these presumed-to-be-true ties to Russia? I’d wager that the number is fewer than a thousand, throughout the entire country, because that’s just not how people work.

No amount of terrible things you told me about Hillary, however true they were, would have caused me to vote for Trump. No amount of terrible things you told me about Trump would have caused me to vote for Hillary. Honestly, how manipulable do Democrats think people are? At absolute best, the revelations of how much a candidate sucks will only reinforce whatever position I currently hold, and most Americans will readily pick and choose what information to take in and what information to discard.

This is practically a tautology. I’ve seen countless Democrats say that there’s no evidence that Hillary has ever done anything wrong–no hyperbole, no straw man. Yet these same people proclaim there is incontrovertible evidence that Trump did countless things wrong. Meanwhile, Republicans do the same and claim that there’s no evidence that Trump has ever done anything wrong, and that there is incontrovertible evidence that Hillary is the devil.

Anyone who is actually open to the information long ago concluded that both of these people are disgusting toads who have no business being anywhere near a position of power. That’s the keyword: open to the information. Because there is plenty of evidence that both Trump and Hillary are absolutely awful.

What we’re talking about isn’t that someone isn’t “open to the information.” It’s simply that someone disagrees with the liberal, and the liberal lost the election because of that disagreement.

Remember any of the 90s sitcoms that had families “vote” on what they were going to do, only for the adults to immediately lose the vote and say, “Well, our votes each count as two, because we’re adults”?

That’s all we’re seeing here.

And even if all this was true, no one has yet explained to me why it’s undesirable for the United States to have warmer relations with Russia. No one seems to care that the United States has warm ties to the European Union–or Pakistan, or India, or Saudi Arabia. So why Russia? In what weird understanding of the world is it bad for two great powers to get along?

Is it because of their human rights record? No, it can’t be that, because many of our Middle Eastern buddies have far worse records–as do we, as we house 20% of the world’s prison population while having only 4% of the world’s population, and you can’t get to those numbers without severe destruction of liberty and rights. Is it because Russia has nukes? So does India, Pakistan, China, many EU countries, the UK, and many others, so it can’t be that, either.

In fact, I’d bet everything that only a year ago the majority of liberals would have happily agreed that the United States needs to work with Russia. Why do liberals suddenly hate them so much that state congressional Democrats are seriously making the claim that the United States needs to break off all communications with Russia? What changed between then and now?

Democrats lost the White House. And since recount efforts showed the votes weren’t tampered with, rather than accepting responsibility and blaming themselves, they would undermine democracy itself with the contention that your vote only counts if you cast it for the reasons they want you to cast it. Put bluntly, your vote only counts if you cast it for their candidate.

They’d deny this adamantly, of course. “You can vote for a Republican,” they’d say. “Just not freaking Trump!”

I see no reason to believe that there’s any truth to this amended claim. In fact, I’m sure we’d be here today if Hillary lost to Kasich or Cruz. They say otherwise, and it’s useless to argue one hypothetical against another. Maybe they are telling the truth. I doubt it, though, because they’ve already lied to themselves about what they’re saying, and what they’re really saying is, “Your vote only counts if you cast it for reasons we agree with.”

If you want to talk tyranny and fascism, I think we’d have a hard time finding clearer examples.

So Ellison Lost the DNC Chair Race

As I hoped, Ellison, who represented the “progressives,” has lost the race for the DNC Chair to Perez, who represents a more mainstream faction of Democrats. I’m certainly not a Democrat, and so all I was comfortable doing was watching it unfold from the sidelines, but I have to admit that I’m pleased with Perez’s victory. However, it has not had the effect that I hoped it would have.

Progressives–and I’m going to continue calling them “progressives,” though there isn’t anything progressive about them–have a wildly overblown ego and understanding of their own importance and political popularity. This really kicked off and became out of control around Occupy Wall Street, when they convinced themselves that they “represented the 99%,” a point that South Park hilariously dug into by having reporters ask protestors, “Technically, I’m part of the 99%… So what do I think about this situation?”

It’s a real problem.

There are countless Facebook pages and groups professing to be the One True Voice of the majority. There’s “The 99%.” There’s “The Other 98%”. Jill Stein repeatedly stated throughout her campaign that she represented the 99%, even though, no, objectively speaking she represented the inverse of that; she represented about 1% of the people. The actual numbers, though, don’t seem to matter.

I mean… What do you even say?

To a certain extent, it’s only worth it to roll one’s eyes at the almost constant proclamations from progressives that they represent this huge supermajority of people, despite all evidence to the contrary, but there is a bigger problem–they seem to actually believe that they are speaking for a huge, unspoken, mysterious supermajority, and, generally, anyone who states otherwise needs to shut up and surrender their voice to the progressives who represent this alleged supermajority. This incongruity between reality and their imagined self-importance has caused them no end of trouble, and I think it’s going to get worse.

So allow me to be the one to inform you candidly, progressives…

You don’t represent “most people.” You don’t represent 99% of people, 98% of people, 51% of people, or even 49% of people. Based on the numbers, at absolute best, giving you the benefit of the doubt in major ways, we can estimate that you represent about 4% of people. You are not a supermajority; you are not even a majority. You’re a stupefyingly loud minority with an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and if you truly believe that you represent anything that is even remotely close to a majority of Earthlings, Americans, young people, or any other division of things or people, then you are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Progressives went into the Democratic Primaries firmly believing themselves to represent, if not 99% of everyone, then at least 51% of people. As such, they literally could not even when Sanders lost the nomination per the written rules of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton. While I’ve lambasted Hillary as much as any progressive and while I firmly agree that the DNC conspired with Hillary to win the nomination, it doesn’t matter, because they didn’t actually do anything against the rules. No one expects the DNC Chair or the RNC Chair to be completely neutral, and progressives don’t expect that, either. Their ire is a result of the fact that Debbie was not a Sanders supporter, not that she wasn’t neutral.

They immediately did what progressives have been doing since the primaries started: bitching, complaining, shouting, and rioting. It was Sanders supporters–progressives–who caused the riot in the Nevada Democratic Primary, and Nevada was not the only state that this happened in. While they did not riot at the Democratic National Convention, they were so boisterous and loud at having lost that Sarah Silverman famously told them they were being ridiculous. And they were, but how could we expect anything else? After all, they firmly believe that they represent 99% of people, or at least 51% of people, so any democratic result must have their side winning–that is their understanding. If the vote doesn’t go their way and they represent 99%, 98%, or 51% of people, then clearly the election was stolen from them. That’s their logic, and that’s how they understand these events.

Their hostility and anger stems from that severe misunderstanding–the fact that they’ve fallen for the bullshit political rhetoric that they’ve been telling themselves year after year. In their echo chambers, all around Buzzfeed and Facebook and Twitter, they’ve been telling each other over and over that they represent 99% of people. Like one progressive who said after Trump’s election victory, “When the top trending tags on Twitter are #AmeriKKKa and #NotMyPresident, that should tell you that this isn’t what America wants.”

Right. The top trending tags on this platform that isn’t limited to just Americans and that doesn’t contain anything even close to all Americans–primarily because Twitter has a notable bias toward banning right-wingers, thereby denying them the voice that might have prevented #NotMyPresident from trending in the first place… are how we should gauge the American pulse. Not by having some day where literally every American adult citizen can firmly and unequivocally state their preference. No, as Sargon of Akkad joked, “What’s Trending on Twitter” is clearly how a government should determine its rulers.

But the point is that they do think that–because Twitter is an echo chamber. And so is Tumblr. The numbers are actually in here, and it’s a proven fact that liberals are far more likely to block people over political views, with over 44% of self-identified liberals stating that they had unfriended or blocked someone over political differences. We have a word for this, when a person or group consistently refuse to associate with people who disagree with them: it’s called an “echo chamber.” And though we can’t extrapolate too much from the studies, if nearly half of self-identified liberals are isolating themselves from people who disagree and demonstrably hold institutional power in places like Twitter, where tweets like this are determined to not be violations of the policy:

… then, obviously, yes. Yes, they’re going to become wildly out of touch. And if, on top of that, they repeatedly tell each other all about how they represent a majority or supermajority of all people, after they have already ensured they won’t even hear the voices of people who disagree with them, then what on Earth could possibly be the result, if not exactly what we see today?

They’re now threatening to revolt because Elliot lost.

So after Sanders lost the nomination, some progressives defected to the Green Party and bolstered Jill Stein’s numbers to the 1% that she ultimately received, while others refused to vote and still others bit their tongues and voted for The Devil in a Pantsuit. The widespread assumption, of course, is that Sanders would have beaten Trump. This, naturally, ignores the fact that Trump didn’t have very good turnout, either, because a fair number of Republicans–among them George H. W. Bush–actively preferred Hillary over Trump. If Hillary had not been the Democratic nominee, then those Republicans who didn’t vote or who voted for Hillary would have had more invested in the outcome. And as much as George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and all the others disliked Trump, believe me when I tell you that they hate Socialism a whole lot more.

So if we assume–which we certainly can–that Stein’s boost came from jaded Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Hillary, and we reduce her numbers back to 0.3%, then we add less than 0.6% of voters to Sanders’ side, while we probably take at least that many Republicans away from Hillary and restore them to the Republican nominee. This sort of speculation is worthless, my own included, especially since the demographics and Electoral College system complicate matters, but my point is just to say that, mathematically, there is no reason to believe that Sanders would have beaten Trump. As many liberals stayed home because they refused to vote for Hillary, just as many Republicans stayed home because they refused to vote for Trump. If you instead offer up a candidate who represents literally the opposite of everything they profess to stand for, then I’m not sure they’d have complacently sat at home.

Take, for example, my uncle and aunt, who considered Sanders such a threat to their way of life that they voted in the Mississippi Democratic Primary, despite being registered Republicans. Or they attempted to. Thankfully, Mississippi requires party registration, so they weren’t allowed to commit such a travesty of voter fraud by interfering in another party’s election. I realize progressives don’t understand that people like that exist–and I realize that I’m preaching to the choir because progressives have long since stopped reading this–but they do, and in shockingly large numbers. Contrary to their proclamations of representing majorities and supermajorities, the reality is that Americans absolutely hate communism–it’s why we fought the Cold War. Well…

Anyway.

And to the average American voter, there isn’t a difference between Communism and Socialism. To them, it’s two ways of saying the same thing: “Fuck you, fuck your liberty, fuck your rights. Do as we say, or we’ll shoot you or throw you in the Gulag.”

And when progressives are out there inflicting violence on people for not agreeing with them, and threatening to revolt because the Democratic Party didn’t “do as [they said],” we can’t really blame the average American for thinking that. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Then chances are… it’s a duck.

At literally every vote that has been held, progressives have lost. They lost the Sanders nomination, they lost the 2016 election, and then they lost the DNC Chair. Yet this delusion of theirs that they represent a majority of people persists, and that is the heart that must be attacked.

You don’t. The numbers suggest that progressives represent, at best, 4% of the American population. This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said. The best we have right now is that roughly half the population even cares enough to vote. Only half of those are Democrats, so we’ve immediately reduced the progressives’ “supermajority” to no greater than 25%. And since evidence suggests that they are far more motivated and likely to pursue political matters than the average Democrat–as the saying goes, the unhappy minority screams the most, or something like that–losses in the nomination and DNC Chair mean that progressives can’t represent more than 12% of the population. Giving you guys a third of that 12% is being extremely generous, because you guys are animated, loud as hell, and extremely disruptive.

Most people are surprised to learn that the average Democrat accepts Trump’s victory. Most people are surprised to learn that the average Democrat didn’t care much one way or another between Trump and Hillary. There’s a reason that Primary turnouts–not to even get started on historical turnouts to vote for a party chair–are so much lower than turnout in the general election: people just don’t care that much. Perhaps because they recognize that the overall impact the state has on their day-to-day life is negligible, and that changing presidents is going to result in fuck all changing. Regardless, it’s certainly the case that the loud, “woke af” progressives are surely going to appear disproportionately to their actual numbers. And this disparity is so great that they believe themselves to be “the 99%” when they actually represent about 2%.

My Advice to Progressives

First, look at the actual numbers to determine what portion of the American population you actually represent. Strictly speaking, you don’t represent any portion of the American population. When a person speaks, the only person they are truly representing is themselves. But let’s put that aside and just say that you represent all people who share your ideology. It won’t be anywhere near 99%, 98%, or 51%. In fact, it will be closer to 1%.

Secondly, stop blocking people who disagree with you. This week, I had a progressive block me on Facebook. When you block people who disagree with you, you insulate yourself against disagreement and completely become disoriented about the popularity of your views in the world. You’re rather like certain anime fans who have been living and breathing their favorite anime for so long that they have completely lost touch with the fact that their show isn’t popular; they insist that it is, because familiarity is generally how we gauge popularity. If you block people who disagree with you, then you’ll obviously end up believing that very few people disagree with you, and you’ll only become more familiar with people who do agree with you, until you’re finally so convinced of your own popularity that you state you are the 99%.

Thirdly, accept that you live in a world with other people, and not all of them agree with you. Moreover, they believe they are right just as strongly as you believe that you are right. And even more over, you aren’t objectively correct. They are just as objectively correct as you are, because neither of you–indeed, no one–is objectively correct. You’re arguing your subjective opinions against their subjective opinions, and I know you feel really, really, really hard that you’re truly correct. But you’re not. You just think you are. And so do the people who disagree with you.

 

This Week in the Patriarchy…? Jessica Valenti, You Lunatic

Before I get too deeply into this foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy, I want to briefly turn to the definition of patriarchy, which Google, of course, handily provides:

Hm. Well, that was pretty cut-and-dry. As can easily be seen from the actual definition of the word, the United States is not a patriarchy. That Jessica Valenti would, in her liberal-soaked hysteria, resort to using such an inapplicable word to describe the situation in the United States serves as a wonderful example of exactly what is wrong with modern “progressives” and why Democrats just lost the election. So let me put it briefly.

Liberals, in case you haven’t noticed, you are preaching to the choir, and everyone who isn’t in your choir is absolutely sick of your raving, hyperbolic, nonsensical bullshit; everyone except dyed-in-the-wool Democrats are already sick and tired of the false dichotomy world you have attempted to craft, where either women are uncontestedly dominant or we live in a patriarchy, where any act of racism against a black person represents an oppressive neo-Nazi system, but where your frequent attacks against white people, men, and Christians go unchallenged by your very own condemnations of racism, sexism, and religious discrimination.

Yes, this, liberals, is exactly what you are doing wrong, and you are continuing to do it as though it didn’t just cost you the presidency, the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, the Senate, a record number of governorships, and control of every single Federal three-letter agency. This psychosis–because no other word adequately describes it–that you are creating and fostering where either “Republicans lose” or “[We are now under] [t]extbook fascism!” This insanely polarized world where either “Regardless of the outcome, we need to work to mend and heal… as long as Hillary wins” or “Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit, [White America],” and where we either have a matriarchy–which we obviously don’t–or we have a patriarchy.

That’s the true danger underlying this insane dribble that these people are putting forward, I’ve talked about it at length and in podcasts, in articles, in videos–everywhere. They can’t even comprehend that we might live in a world where there is neither a patriarchy nor a matriarchy, where things aren’t perfect for either sex, and where men have some advantages and women have some advantages. In their minds, we are not living in a matriarchy, and thus, we must be living in a patriarchy.

Let’s talk for a moment about the liberal idea that a person’s gender shouldn’t matter. Now let’s bask in the anger that “liberals” are displaying because that “glass ceiling didn’t shatter.” Excuse me… You can either say that gender shouldn’t matter, or you can say that it sucks a woman didn’t win the presidency. You can’t say both, because, unlike so many of the black-and-white false dichotomies you throw our way, this actually is exclusive: either something matters or it doesn’t. If gender doesn’t matter, then there is no glass ceiling, as it is utterly and completely irrelevant what gender the person is when they are elected President.

And going as far as saying that we are a patriarchy because we have a male president–allow me to ask, then, would that make us a matriarchy if Hillary had won? Of course not. Anyway, that aside, liberals have, again, moved the goal posts, and this is what is destroying the Progressive movement. You can argue that gender shouldn’t matter, or you can be upset that a vagina didn’t win the presidency. It’s a true dichotomy, and the way you moved the goalpost while pretending you are still fighting for the same equality and egalitarianism that began with the Civil Rights Movement is precisely why you’ve bled support.

It’s not because the White Supremacist, capitalist patriarchal oligarchy fought back.

It’s because you went from “Gender, race, and orientation shouldn’t matter” to “We want a matriarchy! Black supremacy! Special benefits for LGBT people!”

You know what? I already made a video about this subject. So I’ll just end this article now and post it here. It’s long, so grab a cup of coffee or tea, a cigarette, get comfortable, and watch.

No, I Will NOT Be Afraid

A lot of people are telling me that I should be afraid.

Actually, let me correct that. A lot of people say that people like me should be afraid, but–in a true victory for trolling–they say this without any awareness that I am one of the people they’re talking about. I have had countless people in the past two days tell me how terrified LGBT people are, and it always makes me grin to tell them, “Hey. I’m transgender. And I’m not afraid.”

It’s rather like watching their ideological train smash straight into a wall.

Actually, it’s exactly like that.

But it’s true. A lot of people are telling me that I should be afraid, because they want to justify their power grab. These people are swept up in baseless hysteria–just as we saw during the clown bullshit–and they have become completely lost in their own delusional fever pitch of panic and frenzied insanity. I tried to be nice about this, but–holy shit–these people are batshit insane. They are completely detached from reality, having spent the past year in their echo chambers–they call them “safe spaces”–telling each other about how evil and horrible Trump was, just perpetuating to one another what they’d heard and working themselves into a frothing madness that no longer bears any resemblance to what you and I would call “the real world.”

They have gone… totally insane.

They invented safe spaces–these places where they could go and not hear things they didn’t want to hear. Considering that among those things they don’t want to hear are “dissenting opinions,” it’s no wonder that they’ve spent years now in echo chambers. When they hear something they don’t like, they shout, “Triggered!” and flee to the comfort of their safe space, where they interact only with other people who were triggered and fled to the safe space, and where they are assured that everyone with whom they discuss politics, reality, and society will, because they’re sharing a safe space, agree.

I mean holy shit. It’s no wonder, as they sat in echo chambers repeating to one another all of their fears, that they went insane. They purposely cut themselves off from everything they didn’t want to hear, and purposely surrounded themselves with people who would reiterate everything they already believed. Anyone who disagreed with them violated their safe space and was thrown out. So henceforth I will no longer use the phrase “safe space.” I will call it what it is: an echo chamber.

in-fucking-sanityJust imagine being a disabled person and taking in information only when it comes from people who side with you ideologically. We already know that this happens. And if you don’t agree with them ideologically, as soon as you speak, they’ll shriek that you’re disabled-phobic and flee to their echo chamber, where they will be surrounded only by people who tell them what they want to hear. It’s a recipe for insanity.

There’s no other word for it. The result is there for anyone who wants to see it. We currently have millions of Americans who truly believe that Donald Trump is either going to utterly destroy their rights or put them in death camps (Really, some think that). They* are insane. And they are saying some of the most hateful, vitriolic, and disgusting things that I’ve ever heard one person say about other human beings. What is the source of their scorn and disgust?

That some people have different values than they do.

Which, of course, obviously means those other people are LITERALLY Hitler.

They’ve relied on their echo chambers for all their information, even though Wikileaks revealed to us that their echo chamber is exactly that. But they didn’t care. “Lies!” they said. “Lies from the Russians!” they claimed, without a bit of evidence to support it, but that didn’t matter. A liberal told them the Russians were doing it, so it was true. And when a liberal told them the FBI investigation was bullshit and Hillary had done nothing criminal, they accepted it as true.

Actually, if we look at it realistically, this is what happened:

Sanders said Hillary was corrupt, may have called her a criminal; I’m not sure. Liberals believed Hillary was corrupt.

Sanders changed his mind and said Hillary was good. Liberals believed Hillary wasn’t corrupt.

Hillary lost, and suddenly Hillary was corrupt again.

If that doesn’t exemplify sheer insanity, then I’m honestly not sure what else can. It couldn’t be clearer unless they wore shirts that said, “We believe whatever we want to believe in any given moment, and you can’t challenge us because we’ll retreat to our Safe Space Echo Chambers where we don’t have to listen to you, you racist Nazi.”

Here’s another example.

Sanders supporters riot at the Nevada Democratic Convention? “It’s not Sanders’s fault.”

Hillary supporters riot after Hillary loses the election? “It’s not Hillary’s fault.”

Trump supporters attack a minority? “OMG TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER AND THIS IS HIS FAULT”

Of course, some racist piece of shit people are out there doing fucked up things. But you can’t criticize them for that if you’re being racist yourself. Laci Green, if you’re saying things like “fuck you, white America!” then you don’t really have any ground to stand on when you criticize people for being racist and chanting “White power!” What do you expect them to do when you say “fuck you” to them like that? You can only push people so far.

I condemn racism in all its forms. Don’t read the above paragraph through a partisan lens, or you’ll come to the conclusion that I’m condoning Neo-Nazis.

That’s the world liberals have made–the world of Us and Them. I can’t even tell liberals that they’re being insane without them accusing me of being a Trump supporter. Why is that? Because that’s what they think. If you’re not with them, you’re against them, and “against them” is “Trump supporter.” So if I don’t accede to every batshit crazy thing they say, they will conclude that I must be a Trump supporter.

I will say this. Liberals, it is primarily you that is pushing America to the edge of the cliff. Conservatives certainly are not helping, but surely you must see that you can’t constantly say things like “Middle America is racist” and “fuck you, white America” without them striking back. Surely you can see that things like “fuck you, white America” will piss them off? If you lump them into a group and then attack that group, you should not be surprised when that group hits back. Put it another way. After all the chants of “Black Power!” and “Black Lives Matter!” how can you possibly be surprised that some people would start shouting “White power”?

Yes, Laci. You guys didn’t just let this happen; you made this happen.

Of course I condemn this; it’s not the right way to solve the problem.

We have to turn back from the abyss now.

* I’m obviously not referring to every single liberal. I’m only applying these labels to people who exhibit this behavior. And while my words are harsher than they need to be, it’s rather hard to be kind to people who are being so vitriolic.

Faux Progressivism

This is the script to the video Faux Progressivism that I’m working on, but I’m really surprised by how much time it really takes to make a video like this. One issue is that I’m doing the video in my female voice, which isn’t… isn’t working out. I don’t know what to do about that. Will my stamina increase with time? After just 5 minutes of talking, my voice is tired. So recording the script is taking some time, and then compiling everything will take even longer.

The video didn’t follow the script, btw.

I’ve been thinking a lot… about the ideological war that is being raged not only in the United States but throughout the world, because The Guardian brought to my attention that Austria recently elected a far-right president (and, it should be observed, Austria is not the first foreign nation to do this in recent years), and also added that this is being “praised as a victory by xenophobic groups” throughout Europe.

In some ways, it is encouraging to see that the war is still being fought throughout the world, and I should point out here that I am not a conservative. I am at war with the Faux Progressivism—or Regressivism, if you like, but I prefer the former term—and, typically, conservatives are currently the lesser of evils. I am not on conservatives’ sides, not really, which is something that I’ve talked about extensively. However, I’m going to fight authoritarianism and oppression wherever they appear.

Wherever you find authoritarianism, oppression, and injustice…

This is going to be part of Rage Against the Machine’s cover of “The Ghost of Tom Joad,” a song that my old band I Over E covered when we played at the New Daisy Theater. Toward the end of the song, the lyrics repeat “You’ll see me! You’ll see me! You’ll see me!” and it’s pretty awesome. Not quite as often as “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!” but still pretty awesome.

I watched a pretty funny video earlier by the liberal redneck Trae Crowder. While the video was funny, it was marred by the white guilt, selflessness-to-the-point-of-self-destruction that we’ve come to expect of white people, particularly liberals; they’re not allowed to have a sense of self. The only sense of self they are allowed to have is one of self-deprecation; a white person isn’t allowed to say “White people test really well” or “white people invented the best form of government the world has ever seen” or “white people discovered general relativity” or anything like that. A white person is allowed to say only things like “White people are so fucked up” and “White people need to check their privilege.”

They propose a false dichotomy, probably without realizing it. And I’ve spoken frequently about the tendency of Americans to think only in absolutes, to rely entirely upon false dichotomies to establish their worldviews, and to basically try to turn reality into a world of Either-or. I’m not going to go into it too deeply again, but it’s worth pointing out to this guy…

That a family exercising their right to religious freedom, their right to free speech, and their right to protest is not forcing anyone else to live according to their views. It’s trying to convince people to conform to their views, and using some shitty tactics—and certainly, Target would have been within its rights to have this family arrested as I would have done if I had been the Manager On Duty—but my point is that the family he’s talking about… was unequivocally not trying to force their views onto anyone.

Pretty funny, right?

It is… until you think about it.

Because all this is… is yet another example… of a liberal crying “You hateful bigot, you just want to force your views onto others!” the very moment a conservative opens their mouth and expresses their beliefs. The only way this family could escape the label that the liberal redneck would put upon them… is to shut the fuck up and never speak at all. The moment that they do speak, the liberal redneck and all the other liberals immediately retaliate with “You racist, homophobic, islamophobic, book-hating, rock-throwing bigot!”

This…

This is the way ideological wars are won.

Throughout the world, we are seeing pushback from conservatives. In the United States, we have the Mississippi Religious Freedom law, an act that I, the transgender resident of Mississippi, stand wholeheartedly behind. We have Austria electing conservatives. We have Donald Trump, who, despite whatever else can be said of him, abhors political correctness, and political correctness is a key part of the liberal arsenal.

Liberals are inherently divisive and deceitful, and they’re playing the long game—they’ve been doing so for decades. And conservatives waited way too long to try to woo the non-white, non-Christian, non-male crowds. It’s not that they’re racists, Christian, misogynists. Some of them are, for sure, and many parts of the conservative platform are attempts to impose conservativism onto others—North Carolina’s restroom laws are a good example. Conservatives are not, and have never been, willing to live and let live. They are every bit as eager to force conservativism onto non-conservatives as liberals are to force liberalism onto non-liberals, and that’s not right, either. And, if conservatives were the ones with the power, I would speak against it, as well. But just because Conservatives did it in the past, and just because many would do it again, doesn’t mean that it’s okay to do the opposite to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Liberals consciously made the decision to recruit everyone who was not a straight, white, christian male, but it’s not because they believe in equality—we can prove they don’t. It’s because they were aware that straight, white, christian men will not always be the majority. If the only thing electing conservatives are straight, white, christian men, then it’s just a matter of time before that group is too outnumbered to ever put another political official in charge, and liberals effectively dominate the country from then on. Once we reach that tipping point—which is one that we would have reached already, if it wasn’t for the fact that, evidently, white people are more likely to vote than non-white people—there would be no going back. Conservatives would be slowly removed from power, a result that would last forever as the once-majority became more and more outnumbered by a coalition of once-minorities.

So I’ve accused liberals of being divisive and anti-equality. How can I say that? Well, look at what they’ve done. Just take the most recent example of Black Lives Matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re for Black Lives Matter, or against Black Lives Matter; in fact, it doesn’t really matter where you stand on it. The fact remains, and there is no other way to say, it’s divisive along racial lines—it is, by definition, racist.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be absolutely disgusted by Black Lives Matter. King never said “I dream of a day where black people are treated better than they are being treated.” He never said that, because that wasn’t his goal. King said, “I dream of a day when ‘how people are treated’ isn’t based on such superficial characteristics.” King never said “I want black people to be treated better.” He said “I want treatment to be decided on things beyond skin color.”

In a society where people are being treated poorly based on their skin color, then changing society so that skin color is not a factor in how people are treated… necessarily has the result of causing black people to be treated better. It is a side effect of eliminating skin color as a factor; the goal is to eliminate skin color as a factor. King didn’t want to keep skin color as a factor and ensure that people of this skin color or that skin color are treated better than they presently were; he wanted it eliminated as a factor.

Black Lives Matter, by definition, keeps skin color as a factor. Instead of eliminating it as a factor, it enshrines skin color as a factor, and asserts that people with this skin color should be treated better than they are being treated. And it doesn’t matter if you agree with that sentiment or not—it doesn’t justify trying to achieve the right thing with the wrong way. What we have a problem with, in the United States, is police brutality. We have a problem with an authoritarian system that is designed to appeal to the types of people who want power over others so that they can abuse it. This isn’t to say that all cops are like that. It does say, however, that the kind of person who wants power to abuse is always inclined to take on a job that gives them power to abuse, and that job is, without a doubt, police officer.

We have forgotten that police officers were a glorified Neighborhood Watch that we set up so that we could go about our lives without worrying about doing it. They were never meant to have more power or authority than an average citizen—it can never work if they have more authority than an average citizen.

And let’s discuss for a moment this idea that cops are putting their lives on the line, and that we can’t expect them to give suspects the benefit of the doubt. “Maybe that gun is fake” and things like that. But yes. Yes, we can expect them to give suspects the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn’t expect you, an ordinary citizen, to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But a cop—a person who has sworn to serve and protect the innocent? A person who has willingly put on that badge and willingly put themselves in that situation? Absolutely.

Every single day, a cop has to weigh the option: do I sacrifice my life to protect the innocent? Obviously, the cop’s answer to that is “Yes.” That’s why they are cops, right? Because they are willing to risk their own lives doing that. So how come… when push comes to shove… it’s “shoot first, ask questions later”? Before a cop puts on that fucking badge, they should be aware that it means they are weighing the possibility of hurting the innocent against protecting the innocent, and their very lives are the weights on the scale. If they are not willing to give their lives to protect the innocent, then they should take off their fucking badges and find a different line of work.

The Non-Believer posted a video recently about the intimidation tactics in use by some advocates of Black Lives Matter. And, look, you’re not going to find someone who values life more highly than I do. But I will not let skin color factor into my assessment of the value of a life. And I will not stand with Black Lives Matter. I will gladly stand with Lives Matter—not the “All Lives Matter” stunt being pulled by the KKK. And it’s a sad day when something like “All Lives Matter” can be called racist. But the part of the problem is that we allow doublethink, combined with our inability to think in anything but the opposite ends of the spectra, to limit our ability to think. This is why political correctness is so dangerous; it literally prevents us from saying, “These are radical Muslims.” And that’s dangerous, because “radical extremists” aren’t necessarily violent, and there isn’t a correlation between “radical extremism” and violence.

Many people would call me a radical extremist.

I wonder how many government watch lists I just landed on.

Actually, that’s an idle question, because I am the Anarchist Shemale. I’m already on those government watchlists. Despite the fact that non-violence and the Non-Aggression Pact are core parts of my ideology—core parts, and they cannot be waived—I have no doubt whatsoever that the state is keeping tabs on me, because I have, in fact, been visited by goons.

It was one of the strangest experiences of my life. I was the office manager at a computer shop, and senior technician and director of operations—I mean, I was up there on the corporate totem pole. The only person higher than me was the actual fucking owner—and I was 25 years old.

Through various channels, I had ended up with… a few gigabytes… of classified information. This was the real deal. So I did what anyone would do. I spread the information far and wide. I burned DVDs of it and gave it to friends and friends of friends. I distributed it on the pirate bay. If anything happened to me, I wanted the information to survive.

Some time after that, the Chelsea Manning stuff happened, and it was a cloudy, gray morning when they came by the office. I was outside smoking. They pulled up in a very nice red truck, and after a few brief introductions, they asked me a number of very awkward questions that didn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

For example, they said at one point, “You look like you don’t care much for the government,” or something to that effect. Completely baseless—I didn’t even have tattoos then; I was just guy at an office. And then it got even more bizarre, as they told me they had a stolen government computer, and they wanted my help in pulling the contents off of it, even though they didn’t have a password. Piece of cake, really—that’s something I can do in thirty seconds. But I’m not going to have anything to do with this “stolen” computer. They asked if I would help them hack the email address of a government official. Again and again, I told them “No,” and that I wasn’t interested.

Eventually, they left, and I ended up seeing black SUVs with deeply tinted windows and Government plates everywhere I went. Whether I was followed by the government for a few years after that, I don’t know. But I have no doubt whatsoever, because of the awkwardness of the situation, the blunt questions, and the nature of the conversation… that those people who visited me were goons.

I’ve gotten way off track, and that’s okay, because I don’t want to focus too heavily on this subject or that subject. I want to make you think. And, really, the truth is that my worldview and my ideas are… pretty comprehensive. Years ago, I made a sort of flow-chart, starting with a few basic principles, and the end result was that I was able to show clearly, indisputable links between every idea that I hold, from Nihilism to anarchism to atheism to austrian economics.

So if you’re coming to my channel and hoping to hear some simple, standalone platitude like “lol conservatives r bad,” then you’re going to be disappointed. If you’re hoping to hear “I’m transgender, and I’m proud and demand <cough> equal rights, then you’re going to be disappointed.” The world… can’t be broken down into a few simple statements. We humans are complex creatures, and the universe is infinitely more complex; with the addition of every new human, the interactions between humans become ever more complicated, and there is only one ideology, one philosophy, that truly allows you to be you, allows me to be me, allows him to be him, and allows her to be her. That is what I value.

And it’s going to take us quite a lot of time to get through every single issue, if, indeed, I continue doing this. But I can tell you right now how you can figure out where I stand on a given issue. My principles are that:

 

  1. Any individual can do anything that individual wants, except use force, violence, or coercion (collectively: “aggression”)
  2. The group is an illusion. There’s no such thing as a group; there are only individuals. The “group” is a mental construct, and is not real.
  3. It is, therefore, never acceptable to harm individuals for the benefit of a group, because there is no real benefit for the group, because the group does not exist. In effect, you’re harming one individual to help another individual and that is, by definition, and act of aggression.

So I’m going to wrap it up here, since I have no idea how long a 2700 word thing takes in video form. Thanks for watching, and I hope you have a good day.