Cantandum in Ezkaton 01/27/19

nick_sandmann_jan._18__2019_810_500_75_s_c1

In Progressiveland, this offence warrants capital punishment.

I was trying to be objective. I hoped that with the Progressives there was some reasonable or noble goal driving them forward. Maybe there was in the distant past, but that’s over. They’ve been riding a wave of being able to do whatever they want, telling everyone how they should live their lives, playing to our sympathies, and failing that, outright lying.

Don’t like their views on women, abortion, divorce, or marriage? Misogynist! Don’t like their views on men and masculinity? Toxic Masculinity! Don’t like their views on the environment or ClimateChangeTMScience denier! Conspiritard! Don’t like their views on affirmative action and the like? Racist! Don’t like the education system? Child hater! Don’t like non-porous borders? Xenophobe! Bigot! Don’t like minimum wage laws?  Capitalist stooge! Greed monger!

Progressives have done this for as long as I can remember; let’s say 50 years. I have three big gripes about this.

First, Progressive ideas have largely failed. Maybe there has been some progress, but it’s been minimal and probably a fluke. Progressives impose simple top-down solutions to ‘problems’ (often, not a problem at all, and usually without consulting the alleged victims of the problem). Often, it is an attempt to fix things in society or culture which actually require change from the bottom-up. Failure results most of the time, and often, things get worse. But, instead of admitting failure, they double-down on their solutions and use shame to silence dissenting voices. I think they do not want to admit they are wrong, or that the ongoing misery of those they wanted to help is actually, in part, their fault.

Second, they do not have a monopoly on their adopted issues: and other viewpoints might just be better than theirs. But, they are so used to silencing everyone else that today they are offended when you hint you engage in Wrongthink, such as a facial gesture like a smirk.

Third, Progressive attitudes are thinly veiled intolerance, contempt and disdain towards the groups they claim to want to help, and outright hostility to those they see as the route of the ‘problem’ (since they will not look at their own faults). Likely, it is simply about obtaining power: see Spandrell on BioLeninism. Last week was the boiling point, and I sense a sea change, due to the following…

Bang the Drum Slowly

So some Christian high school youths, a group of Black Hebrew Israelites, and some Native American activists went to the Lincoln Memorial. The punchline isn’t all that funny, but comes with a blowjob. It seems to me that people got in each other’s space: the American Indians chanted and banged their drums, the high school kids sang their school songs, and the BHI made some nasty comments. What breaks out in the internet and the media is lunacy.  A good recap of the event was provided by Sargon of Akkad.

The particular Progressive problem was the video of Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips (with the drum). Initially, the narrative was the youths had surrounded Mr. Phillips (not what actually happened) and…[trigger warning]…Nick had a smirk on his face!

Progressives lost their shit over a smirk. That’s right…a smirk. I don’t buy that the kid was smirking. He was probably wondering what the hell Mr. Phillips was doing, and what danger he was in. I don’t see any indication from the videos Nick had ANY ill intent at all. (Progressives, however, treat being white itself as ill intent, and call you racist when you disagree.) I don’t think Mr. Phillips is being honest when he says he was trying to defuse the situation: you don’t go drumming right up in someone’s face to calm them down. It probably could have passed without further incident, but Progressives just could not help themselves when a juicy chance to correct thought-criminals was served up. Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media has a good analysis here.

In particular, my grievances are against Progressives, whose members called for the doxing, assault, and murder of the high school kids, based on a ‘smirk’. This, after chiding men for reacting unfavourably to an advertisement which labelled all of them as inherently ‘toxic’. (Showing Toxic Progressivism is the disease we need to worry about. ‘Toxic Masculinity’ is all projection.) After this fine exhibition of dog-whistle outrage by Progressives, I’m assuming everything they accuse someone of is merely projection on their part.

But my greatest ire is for the high school: they threw their kids under the bus with little hesitation. That’s unacceptable. If discipline is necessary, then fine, but one must find out what actually happened first. (They have since recanted. I want to know if they returned the twenty silver pieces they got.)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb once said (I think in The Bed of Procrustes) that the argument “Think of the children!” is a hard argument to fight against, but it is also the last refuge of scoundrels. How stupid one would have to be to:

  • hand this argument to your enemies;
  • through media which are readily tracked, recorded, and duplicated;
  • placing your enemy on the high ground; and
  • leaving YOU looking like the scoundrel.

I did not think Progressives could push their agenda so far as to make The View and Ezra Levant agree…on anything. Yet they do. Congrats, Progressives, you are that fucking stupid.

Anti-Gnostic reminds us this insanity has been going on for some time now. (Here is an explanation of the picture.) Jim takes note. As does PA Blog, here and also here. Evolutionist X notes the moral failings.

Rant Over…the Rest

The NYT takes a mild one on the chin (from David Reich).

The Orthosphere discusses what you could do to live your best life, and spoiler alert: it’s not your career. Who profits from sexual vices? Also, morality must be for victims.

Spandrell discusses Tucker Carlson’s war against woke capital and the right’s future. A follow-up at Motus Mentis. Also, Malcolm’s thoughts on the ongoing Russian election interference investigation. Also: Eew!

Something for my fellow Canucks: Evolutionist X on the Hamatsa Society and the Potlatch.

jesusmary

Mr. Briggs has had a series of posts: Summary Against Modern Thought. It’s his translation of St Thomas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, and roughly works out to one post per chapter. I’ve read a few and they deal with Christian theology. I was struck by Mr. Brigg’s latest, which deals with the ultimate felicity and man’s purpose as quest for the truth. I have been searching for harmony and flourishing in life. No matter where I looked (Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Jordan Peterson, No More Mr. Nice Guy), the same thing kept coming up: to live a life, always seek and speak the truth. Mr. Briggs drives this simple idea home through his Christian faith. His post provides the example of Jesus Christ, whose sufferings teach us how to find courage to speak truth in the face of destruction, resting assured that your sacrifice is necessary, so that the world, with you in it, can be redeemed and renewed.

Also: Conservatives Conserve Nothing; A particularly ‘WTF?’ version of The Week in Doom; ‘Equality’ is false; and the sudden push against meat.

Antony Karlin discusses why Eastern Europe may not be a place to escape the poz. Matt Forney’s helpful comments.

Alf’s book is now for sale! Also, relief from information overload.

The American Sun was busy this week. A dissection of the recent defenestration of James Watson. A ‘how-to’ for the minimalist reactionary. Thoughts on Progressive control of ‘masculinity’ and the real reason for the APA ‘Toxic Masculinity’ guidelines. Good work on how maintaining an identity is necessary for participation in politics and morality. Capping it off: Five Friday Reads.

Finally, in Canada this week, Ottawa’s (now former) Ambassador to China, John McCallum, gave a press conference to Chinese media in Canada about the arrest and potential deportation of Huawei Executive Meng Wanzhou. She was arrested last December at the behest of the US in Vancouver, on her way to Argentina. She awaits deportation (while on bail) to the US for allegedly violating sanctions against Iran. During the conference, McCallum suggested several ways for Meng to argue against the extradition. McCallum gave the impression he was pro-China, which is fine for the Prime Minister, but not some underling. Later, McCallum stated he wished the US would just drop its extradition request. Understandable, as China appears ready to execute one Canadian and is holding on to two more, ostensibly in response to Meng’s arrest. Justin Trudeau finally asked for and received McCallum’s resignation yesterday. Conspiracy theories abound. Rex Murphy, with his usual vigour, is not convinced McCallum was just a loose cannon. Antony Karlin provides a Chinese perspective.

Cheers!

Señor Blanco

Advertisements

One comment

  1. alf · January 27

    Thx for the linking

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s