Moral Majority 2.0 – Brad Torgersen

Moral Majority 2.0 – Brad Torgersen

Let’s talk about original sin, shall we?

In the beginning, there was Adam, and there was Eve. And they partook of the forbidden fruit, and were cast out of the Garden. Thus becoming mortal, and knowing the difference between good and evil. Their lives became short, and painful. And so too were the lives of their children made short, and painful. The sin of the father (Adam) was passed to all of his descendants. None were clean, because all were born into a fallen state — never knowing a day without the stain of sin.

It’s interesting to me that our (increasingly secular) society — averse to fables from monotheistic scripture — has nevertheless re-invented this particular thing. Something about original sin obviously grabs our collective attention, deep down in our psychological bones. We may declare God to be a myth, and renounce all traditional commandments, but original sin . . . we apparently love that idea just a little too much.

So, instead of having Adam’s transgressions laid on our heads, we have the transgressions of our ancestors, and our society as a whole, or even the transgressions of people who just happen to look similar to us, or who share the same gender, laid on our heads. We are sinful simply for existing. Denial of the sin is merely proof that we’re even more sinful than we thought. To deny is to be blind. To deny is to exhibit privilege.

And of course, the way to repent of the sin, is to do three things:

1) Use social media to “own” your sin, and decry yourself. It’s the digital era’s version of the Maoist self-renunciation: go into the public square, rip your shirt, beat your own breast in a confession of your Wrongthink. This is Step 1 on the road to rehabilitation, and being accepted into the fold of Goodthinkers.

2) Make sure the priest class (in this case: militant trans, militant gay, militant gender, or militant racial activists) see you doing Step 1. Do it often enough that the priest class doesn’t begin to suspect you of relapse. Once is not enough. You have to convince the priest class that you’re not straying off the reservation. So: repeat as necessary. Your original sin never goes away. You’re just hanging a sign on yourself that says, “I know I am a sinner, but I am one of the good guys.”

3) Go on the offensive against everyone else in the universe who is “asleep” and not presently carrying out Step1 and Step 2. And as noted in the beginning, denial of original sin is merely double-plus ungood proof that you are, in fact, a sinner. The bigger the denial, the more “obvious” it is that you’re soaked red with guilt. Because the militants have already stamped an asterisk on you that says, “Bad Person.” Denial makes them use a sharpie to embolden the asterisk, and then they append the words, “. . . who is a stupid fucking asshole, and doesn’t get it!”

TAKE NOTE: anyone can fall from grace at any moment. Even if they believe they’re actively engaged in all three steps. Any militant (from the priest class) can point to your asterisk, and call you out. For not being energetic enough in your efforts. Or for committing any number of slips that merely demonstrate you are not, in fact, reformed, and are merely hiding your true terribleness. Because your asterisk is permanent. Forever. You were born with it. You can never get rid of the asterisk.

And if one of the priest class feels like pointing to your asterisk and diming you out — especially if they can get numerous other priests involved in the effort — you’re fucked. No matter how much time and trouble you devote to steps 1 through 3. The militants have the final say. You can apologize your ass off, and mewl at their feet like the second-class human being that they’ve deemed you to be, and you still won’t ever wipe the stink of that asterisk off yourself.

Because it’s not about equality. Equality’s got nothing to do with it.

It’s about one group of individuals — always self-appointed, and using the safety and volume of social media – who are concluding that they are inherently better than us ordinary chumps; and conning us into collaborating in our own debasement. They’re not interested in making the world a better place. Certainly not for you and me, whom they regard as a lower form of life. They’re not even interested in making the world a better place for themselves, since admitting that the world is improving (by quantifiable, measurable criteria) would undermine their narrative of endless victimization.

It’s about the priest class doing what the priest class has always done — pat itself on the back for being superior.

Remember Saturday Night Live’s hilarious Church Lady skits?

Imagine the Church Lady, but in her late twenties to early thirties, and covered in de rigueur tattoos, facial piercings, multi-colored hair that’s deliberately styled unconventionally, or not styled at all, plus sexually androgynous clothing and choice of makeup, and sporting a trilby, plus boa, while flipping off the camera with two fingers — snapping a frowny-selfie.

That’s the 2016 Church Lady — the face of Moral Majority 2.0

And no, it’s not any more fun now, than it was in the eighties.

Satan? P’shaw! This Church Lady shouts, ”Misogyny! Racism! Transphobia!”

Don’t bother denying it, gentle friend. Church Lady has read the tea leaves of your soul, and knows the darkness that lurks there. You’re a seething froth-pot of barely-contained hatred and oppressor-think, just waiting to explode in a firestorm of microaggression. Got gay friends? Interracially married? Have a trans nephew? Fuck you and your weak-ass shields! No facts will get in the way of the narrative of the Church Lady! She’s got the goods. She’s calling you out. She’s airing all of your dirty laundry. And if you don’t have any dirty laundry – because, like almost all of us, you’re a decent human being — Church Lady is going to invent some dirty laundry for you. Church Lady knows. Oh yes, Church Lady knows

Yup, Moral Majority 2.0 — this time with even moar self-righteousness and shrill finger-pointing!


What does an ordinary American do?

Some of us have figured out that Moral Majority 2.0 is a colossal mindfuck and shell game, and have given the priest class (and their groveling lackeys) a middle finger. But this is not business for the timid. Oh no. You have to have your heat shield ready for radical reentry, because the Church Lady don’t play that. Church Lady — glowering at you through your monitor, with her mauve bangs and thick glasses, and an overly-plump, anemic profile — has had enough of your cishet fuckery. You will bend your knee to the new moral order, or you’re going to get your digital ass handed to you by a squadron of social justice spetznaz.

Unlike you, they don’t have jobs. They have all damned day to hang out in your twitter space, your Facebook page, your blog comments, haranguing you into the wee hours. And if they think you present a juicy enough target, they will reach out for larger media megaphones — already germane to the topics and themes of the secular world’s version of holy war — to ensure that you’re duly tried, convicted, and sentenced in the Banana Republic Court of Public Opinion.

Given this bleak picture, most good folk will tuck and run, spraying a 30% extra-tall can of industrial-strength NOPE in their wake. Hiding from the Inquisition is a time-honored response. And it often works, provided you’re in no way trying to operate in the public sphere.

Otherwise — trying to do the right thing — many more will attempt to play the game. They will engage in the three steps (written above) and imbibe the doctrine of self-loathing. It’s only fair, after all. How can anyone be productive and joyful, when reality is crushing and miserable for Church Lady, and all others like her? Sensitive, caring folk will rub their faces with soot, put on the rainbow hair shirt, and walk bare-foot through the field of ideological broken glass.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can simply flip down your welding visor, and endure the glare of their outrage — shining brighter than the sun. They can’t touch you unless you let them touch you. And since these are individuals with a severe emotional IQ deficit, it won’t be long before your quiet refusal to cooperate, flummoxes them, and they get bored, and move on to other, softer targets.

Like we used to say in Basic Combat Training, you can’t smoke a rock. Which means: you can’t truly break someone who knows the “game” is being played, and summarily laughs it off — for the game that it is.

I fully expect the pendulum to swing back. It may already be swinging. Too many people have been burned by Moral Majority 2.0, and too many genuine liberals — indeed, too many minorities — are tired of seeing their good works derailed for the sake of egotistical and psychotic closet-cases, who will simply keep moving the goal posts so as to ensure that a) they are never not oppressed, and b) they are forever in the moral driver’s seat.

Again, this whole thing . . . it ‘aint about equality. Church Lady doesn’t give a fuck about equality.

Church Lady gives a fuck about Church Lady. End of story.

You? Take care of your own business. Conduct yourself according to your own principles. Keep your own counsel. And don’t let the fuggheads grind you down.

306 thoughts on “Moral Majority 2.0 – Brad Torgersen

  1. It surprises me that the people who decried public shaming in decades past are now the loudest at public shaming now. Apparently they decided it really is an effect tool.

    1. For that matter, they’re still decrying public shaming. The biggest bullies are anti-bullying. It’s a junior-grade edition of railing against “counter-revolutionaries” a decade after the revolution was won.

      1. The girls who bullied my son in middle school did so by accusing him of bullying them, of sexually harassing them and of calling them lesbians (that one was weird, as I don’t think son, at the time, knew the word.)
        We only tweaked to the problem by a) their accusing him on a day he was home sick. b) my following him from school unseen and seeing them follow him and calling him names.
        But, yes, they used the anti-bully mechanisms to bully him.

          1. Anti-bullying training actually results in bullies learning new bullying techniques. The worse aspect of public schools is treating fighting back as worse than bullying.

            1. The worse aspect of public schools is
              There are so many bad aspects, I have a hard time getting a grip on their relative badness. They probably think the advice to ‘fight back’ is victim shaming.

              1. No, he means that actually fighting back is viewed as worse than the bullying that it is in response to.

                1. Yep, because schools have spent decades teaching people that you can’t fight back and defending yourself is just as wrong as attacking someone.

                  1. I’m not saying that that attitude about the wrongness of fighting back against aggression has been taken out of schools and into the larger political context, but I’m not saying it hasn’t, either.

                    Oh, screw it. I’m totally saying that.

                    1. that’s what i was saying, too. hence why there’s a segment of the population who thinks there’s no need for you to carry a concealed firearm, and you’ll be fine if you give them what they want…

                  2. They taught me the opposite, mostly through incompetence. You see, I actually tried it their way, once. I didn’t fight back, I just took it. I got beat up worse…. and I got suspended for fighting even though I did NOT fight back. OK, lesson learned, school administration is as evil as I thought, and fighting back is better than the alternative.

                2. Yes it is. The son of a friend of mine got in more trouble for fighting back when he was hit, then the kid who hit him ….

              2. No, Donald, it’s even simpler: if they simply suspend / expel everyone involved then they can’t be accused of discrimination.

                1. Also it’s less of an administrative headache. As a ’90s/early oughts bully magnet, I can attest that the back-and-forth accusations were honestly pretty difficult for the school secretary or the vice principal, who doesn’t know us and certainly didn’t see the incident, to sort out. (And that was before “anti-bullying” reached its fever pitch.) Easiest to be “anti-violence” as a whole. Of course the kind of kids who beat kids up don’t exactly mind being suspended from school, but… they think they’re being fair, I guess?

                  The worst of them was in freshman year of high school, when I was actually sent to court for being beaten up and then eventually retaliating. They didn’t actually have a case – they just wanted to get me terrified into doing community service – so I deeply thank my dad for explaining to me what a plea bargain was and why I would want to avoid it. (The reason being that Dad wanted to fight this outrage and set a precedent case against the school board. He didn’t know there was no case.)

          2. Misnomer. What’s called “anti-bullying” is actually “counter-bullying” in most cases, because that fulfills the will to power of the victims.

            1. Yep. It’s not bullying when a noted anti-bullying advocate says that people that disagree with him politically should commit suicide. Or when people realize they can use the courts/legal system/public megaphones to harm people that believe differently.

              A mob of people showing up electronically to harangue a business for hiring a (now) untouchable is no different than the photos you’d see of people attempting to block access to a school or business for blacks or women.

  2. The trilby isn’t for Social Justice Church Lady, it’s for the next incarnation of self-righteous misery waiting in the wings. Basically the same deal, but doing it to/”for” men rather than women.

      1. Pretty much. The ‘respectable’ people are on the metaphorical stage in this analogy.

      1. A hat named after a woman who can only produce art while hypnotized, from a fantasy/sf novel by a guy — Trilby by George du Maurier.

        Yeah, I’m thinking they don’t know etymology.

  3. Take no prisoners. Leave no structure standing. Salt the earth behind you.
    Total war requires a total response.
    For sure and certain, these are the rules of engagement (ROE) the socialist crybullies are using; it behooves us to act in a reciprocal manner.
    The idea of asymmetric warfare applies to us: we are in the position of the viet cong. Our success depends on attack, not defense.

    1. Mock is good.
      The social justice wankers are obsessed with their own importance, their own mostly imaginary self worth.
      Mockery and ridicule are our best weapons against them.

      1. Yes, I agree with Uncle Lar. Humor is kryptonite for the proponents of Moral Majority 2.0, and we should take a page from the combatants who faced Moral Majority 1.0, I think. Make fun of the motherfuckers. Mock them into the dirt. Mock them six ways from thursday. Choose not to care if they call you vile names. Laugh at their scorn. Put your thumb to the end of your nose, and wiggle your fingers. The louder they shriek and stomp their feet and demand you comply, “Or else!” just tell them to go screw themselves, and the My Little Trans Pony™ they rode in on. Moral scolds absolutely cannot stand being made the butt of a joke. It enrages them to the point blood shoots out of their ears. The opponents of Moral Majority 1.0 took every opportunity to be as irreverent as possible. I think Moral Majority 2.0 can be fought in the same way. Because in the end, nobody likes an unfunny sourpuss. Not even the other unfunny sourpusses.

        1. This, so much this.
          You can also go Alinsky on them as well- make them live up to their own standards.

          1. They have no standards. The goalposts are always moving to where their advantage is greatest.

            1. As the ILOH likes to point out, this is a spectator sport. If you can get them to SJWsplain why the goalpost are being moved, you are winning.

          2. Actually, you can’t. Because their first and overriding standard is that standards apply only to the oppressors and the privileged. The oppressed and the victimized are exempt from all standards.

            To even suggest that the standards applied to you should be applied to them is, well, sexist, racist, homophobic……ad nauseam.

    2. While I’d certainly LIKE to take that advice, I lack the raw power to pull it off. I’ve had some success relying on a solid defense where I have the advantage of the stated principles of the place (free speech, equal opportunity, egalitarianism) being more in agreement with mine than theirs. They rail about something, I contradict them. They turn the shame machine on and tell me how horrible I am… I ignore the meaningless insults and point out where they are factually wrong or in contradiction with those stated principles. They redefine terms, I refuse to accept the redefinitions. They violate those principles, I call them out on it. They stomp off in indignation and fire a parting shot about me having made the place “unsafe” for them…. well, I’m the only one left standing, yes?

      1. Yes, indeed.
        When they play the victim card then refuse to further engage, but rather crawl away to lick their ever so hurt feelings, that is the point where you know you’ve won the encounter.

  4. You know, I have a lot of thoughts about this that I really should write down sometime. The entire concept of original sin (at least as it is used by the more controlling branches of Christianity), or many interpretations of Genesis (I’m not talking about any purported literal meaning: Even the mythological, metaphorical meaning seems almost exactly wrong to me), for that matter, run almost exactly counter to my own worldview.

    (PS – I’m an agnostic, and at this point probably pretty far into the infidel camp. PPS – There are probably other ways of interpreting it that come out better than how that whole origin myth and what follows from it sounds to me.)

    1) Use social media to “own” your sin, and decry yourself. It’s the digital era’s version of the Maoist self-renunciation:
    2) Make sure the priest class (in this case: militant trans, militant gay, militant gender, or militant racial activists) see you doing Step 1. Do it often enough that the priest class doesn’t begin to suspect you of relapse.
    3) Go on the offensive against everyone else in the universe who is “asleep” and not presently carrying out Step1 and Step 2.

    Here you identify a key tactic used by cults to mind-control their followers. I don’t know if this behavior is calculated on their part: It probably isn’t. It’s probably some sort of instinctive thing on the part of people predisposed to lead cults, or a self-reinforcing pattern of behavior that grows out of the random noise of the unconscious. Whatever it is, the systematic violation of the target’s own independent judgement (yes, of your own “knowledge of good and evil”), and the target’s own self worth is used to subordinate the mind/goals/purpose of the target to the goals of the cult (either it’s leader, or just the propagation of the dogma itself).

    The extent to which any religion, philosophy, political party, or self-improvement program uses these tactics is the extent to which they are behaving like a cult and trying to control your mind.

    TLDR, I would say: Admit to things that *in your own judgement* are mistakes. Admit to actual wrong that you personally have actually done to others. Never admit to “original sin”, to some automatic and infinite debt that you owe anyone simply for existing.

    1. The main differences between Christian original sin (in its best form)and SJW original sin are relatively simple:
      1. The Christian version is a debt owed to God by all mankind; the SJW version is a debt owed by men to men.
      2. In the Christian version, someone else died to expunge it, although you will die as well; in the SJW version, you must die and can never expunge it.

    2. Personally, I have no problem with the theological concept of original sin, because there is such a thing as concupiscence. (And it’s a pain in the butt.)

      OTOH, it’s also fair to say that there are other valid and orthodox Christian ways of looking at it, and that most of the Eastern theologians are worth reading. My understanding is that the Byzantine theologians felt that death and the loss of Adam and Eve’s unfallen state was pretty much a big enough consequence. However, “ancestral sin” does mean humans have an inborn inclination toward sin that can be removed by Baptism, so it’s pretty much the same thing. Just not exactly. And if you want to find out the details, you can go research it and write a thesis! Heh.

    3. Frankly, I see many nonbelievers’ eyes glaze over whenever the word ‘sin’ crops up in conversation. Talking about the Perfectability of Man (whether it is possible, what means would be required, who would control those means, how well this has worked in the past) is often a way to get Lefties to think about this topic without turning them off.

  5. The Left always detested the idea of The Moral Majority because in their eyes they are the arbiters of morality and as they are a jealous lot they will brook no other arbiters beside themselves.

    1. I recall Mark Russell commenting that if there is a moral majority, by implication there must be an immoral minority. He then continued with, “As a member of the embarrassed neutrality…”

    1. You might look at Oscar Wildes’ life, just as a checklist of what has already been done, 🙂


  6. Eh, the Gods of the Copybook Headings would dissent from you on the evil of the doctrine of original sin. Whatever you think of the theological implications, the obvious fact about people is that they will do what is wrong. Often. Even when it is obvious that they will be better off in the long run if they don’t.

  7. “My ancestors were enslaved and oppressed.”
    – Every human being in history.

    Just point out that they are not special, that nothing uniquely evil happened to them or their ancestors, and that the current level of freedom they enjoy is a direct result of the system they are decrying. They don’t get the one without the other. Ending the American system isn’t going be good for blacks, gays, or women. Minorities don’t rule unless they’ve got a significant weapons advantage, which our minorities do not.

    1. “Just point out that they are not special, that nothing uniquely evil happened to them or their ancestors, and that the current level of freedom they enjoy is a direct result of the system they are decrying.”

      And then stand well back, out of range of the flying spittle, tears, and exploded brain matter.

      1. With the “Black Reparations” crowd, I’ve always found it valuable to submit to them a bill for services rendered to their ancestors, by mine, in the Civil War. Considering that one branch of the family went bankrupt supporting abolitionist causes, including paying for a significant fraction of a black regiment’s formation, that adds up. Then, there are all the ones who died on the side of the Union, during that war, and the ensuing economic hardship incurred on surviving spouses and children, followed by all the follow-on effects that go with all that…

        By the time you get done with it, it’s a considerable sum. And, since we’re talking about people who were mostly “skilled labor”, at worst, the money involved dwarfs any economic debts owed to unskilled slaves for labor during their terms as slaves…

        I dropped that bomb on a “black activist” who was agitating for reparations, during one of those invidious Equal Opportunity sessions in the Army. By the time I got done, he was in tears, because by using his math and reasoning in reverse, he actually owed me something on the order of several hundred thousand dollars for expenses and costs involved in freeing his ancestors. See, the thing is, when you’re talking about the value of labor rendered by unskilled slave labor that is used to only pick cotton, versus the value of labor of a skilled blacksmith or carpenter, let alone the businessmen and mine owners in my family background that were lost during the Civil War, well… Guess what?

        I shut him up permanently by magnanimously writing the whole thing off.

        Of course, I also carefully didn’t mention the other branch of the family that was on the Confederate side, and who’d owned slaves, or that the great-grandparents of most of the abolitionists had made their fortunes in the triangle trade. Also didn’t point out, that by his reasoning, I had a better claim to any reparations due for black slavery due to the fact I could actually document a black slave ancestor, and he couldn’t…

        The whole thing just needs to go away, because at this point, the idea of reparations is useless to discuss. All participants in the institution of slavery are dead and buried, these many years, and it is far past time to move past the whole issue. We’ve all got slave ancestors, most of whom were slaves to the rest of our ancestors, regardless of which continent we started out on.

          1. And 75% plus of their infrastructure. Probably that 10% or more goes across across the population based on deaths due to hardship.

        1. All my Civil War Ancestors were Confederates. In every case poor farmers who could not afford slaves.

        2. I think slave owners should pay reparations to their slaves, but corruption of blood has never been part of America’s legal system.

            1. Most people get Original Sin wrong — it was not by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Original Sin intruded. It was by Eve (and them Adam) saying, “Not by His will but by mine.”

              The fruit eating part was just the manifest action of that will.

            2. Original sin has nothing to do with corruption of blood and everything to do with corruption of soul.

              1. What’s the difference between Original Sin and evil inclination? I don’t think I understand Original Sin.

                1. It creates a rift from G-d, big enough to make humans mortal. That separation from G-d makes us vulnerable to sin. It’s not so much a “Stain” though it’s been referred to as such, but “a spiritual illness.” Even baptism is considered a weak vaccine. Sin might still kill you, but now you have a fighting chance.
                  At least this is what I understand of it. My own opinions are my own and somewhat more complicated.

                2. The Mormon doctrine approach to it is that it was a transgression more than an actual sin: Adam and Eve were given two commandments in Eden–go forth and multiply, and do not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Those two were mutually exclusive: in their immortal, innocent state, they were incapable of reproduction, so could not fulfill the ‘go forth and multiply’ part of things. In order to do that, they had to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. They allowed Satan to tempt them into eating–as mentioned above, taking the “my will, not God’s will” road–and so became mortal, fallen, and subject to sin and temptation (and therefore cut off from God’s presence without the intercession of an Atonement by someone who truly *was* both mortal and sinless, ie, the Savior).

                  So in our odd Mormon viewpoint, at any rate, original sin was, yes, a screw-up, but a necessary one since none of us would be here without it. The point, after all, is having free will…which necessarily means being free to royally screw things up. 😀

          1. The Founders even formalized no punishments through corruption of blood in our Constitution, albeit they only thought to do so for the worst of crimes.

            “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

            You can take all the traitor’s property and do horrible things (subject to the 8th amendment) ending in the traitor’s death, but that’s *all* you can do, and you have to do it in that order. Can’t punish his relatives, can’t take his stuff after he’s dead, can’t say that the traitor’s parents are forbidden to leave their money to the traitor’s children.

        3. … at this point, the idea of reparations is useless to discuss.”

          It depends on what your purpose in discussing it is. If your purpose is playing on white guilt it is very useful. From an ethical, philosophical, theological or economical point it is indeed useless* but from a rhetorical point it is very helpful.

          *Try asserting the Buddhist perspective: he was not a black slave in an earlier life; that he is suffering now for the crimes of slaveholders then indicates that he probably was one back in the day, and reparations would clearly constitute a sin against the Karmic balance.

          1. Isn’t Reparations just another way to shake down people? In other words a way to get money without having to work for it. I don’t consider race hustling and extortion work.

    2. “My ancestors were enslaved and oppressed.” –> my unsympathetic response: “Yeah, sucks to be you, dwelling on old wrongs that way. Really, get a life!”

    3. Ending the American system isn’t going be good for blacks, gays, or women.

      As a straight, white, Christian I fear the schadenfreude I will feel if they succeed.

    4. It is also fun to point out that most black slaves shipped to somewhere from Africa were, sold into slavery by other blacks, who either captured them in battle/raid, or bought them wholesale from those that did. and if the whites hadn’t bought them from the Arabs or Black victors, they likely would have still been slaves, in other areas, or more likely DEAD.

      1. 95% of the African slave trade went East to Muslim lands. Of the 5% that went across the Atlantic, 95% of them went to South America or the Islands.

  8. Yup, Moral Majority 2.0 — this time with even moar self-righteousness and shrill finger-pointing!

    While I agree with the thrust of this essay, in point of fact, the original Moral Majority was far, far less obnoxious than the Left’s contemporary version. It did a lot more praying than condemning. Its principal mission was to sound a call for a return to the virtues — specifically, the virtues our forebears had recognized and practiced, but which we, in our oh-so-superior wisdom, had rejected as antiquated and unnecessarily limiting.

    What are those virtues? Why, everyone knows them, whether or not he practices them:
    — Faith,
    — Hope,
    — Charity,
    — Prudence,
    — Justice,
    — Temperance,
    — Fortitude.

    The caricatures of the Moral Majoritarians advanced by the media bore as little resemblance to their actual convictions and behavior as do the Left’s caricatures of us awful conservatives. There’s a huge lesson in that — and it would greatly assist the absorption and propagation of that lesson to review, humbly and without preconceptions, what came of the Left’s campaign to demonize “Moral Majority 1.0.”

    1. > Temperance

      They scored even more points for imposing their “temperance” on others. Alcohol, stores open after 5pm, dancing, movies on Sunday… the town I grew up in, they even closed the city park on Sunday, because the Jeez who ran the town felt everyone should be in church.

    2. “…caricatures of the Moral Majoritarians advanced by the media…” — thus, Insty’s repeated recommendation for conservatives & libertarians of wealth to invest in the media. It’s a completion of the Founders’ idea of “balance of [political] power” to include the 4th estate … so that, having reasonable balance of criticisms, new and unpopular ideas may at least get a fair hearing. Nowadays, new media in all its forms needs that balance, but “we” have the majority of the new media (don’t we? – I may be reading in a bubble of my own.)

      1. For most of this nation’s history the Press was openly and distinctly partisan. I cannot decide whether the collapse of the MSM into a single supposedly objective scrum is more cause or effect of our present national difficulties.

        Certainly the shift from ink-stained wretches who had worked apprenticeships in the trade to J-School graduates has not produced beneficial results (from the view of defenders of our Constitution; it has worked marvelously well from the perspective of those opposing democratic republican ideals.)

  9. ” and that the current level of freedom they enjoy is a direct result of the system they are decrying. ”

    And then watch their heads explode as they attempt to bend space and time to prove you wrong by doubling-down on the decrying – as though if they just shout the mantras louder, it will make it so. I gave up trying to reason with them long ago. Now I just troll them in class for the lols when I’m bored. My husband says I’m going to hell, but he’s promised to save a good seat for me. 😉

    PS Excellent article. I laughed hard at the industrial can of NOPE.

        1. Oh good. So long as there is something today that cannot be blamed on me, I’m calling today a success.

          1. I’m sure that there’d be something that you could be blamed for but being “blamed for” and “your fault” are two different things. 😈

              1. Whoa. I’m flashing back to my time as a state employee. Time to take a nap and some migraine pills.

          2. The real issue here may be that Catticus is today’s “scapegoat-du-jour”. Or, to misappropriate a quote from I-forget-who….

            “I didn’t say it was your fault. I said I would BLAME you for it!”


              1. Because the computer sending out the mass email going out to us for the random “Blame Catticus Day” has been overclocked and does 17 days for every 2.

  10. As I will take any excuse to quote Chesterton, I happily do so now, from Orthodoxy:

    “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin–a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. …The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”

      1. Does Catskinner skin live cats?

        Anybody can skin dead cats.

        It takes a truly evil & skilled being to skin live cats. 😈 😈 😈 😈

        1. I have had people become truly outraged at the title of my first novel, “Catskinner’s Book”, and claim that it glorified cruelty to animals. For the record, though, no cats are skinned in “Catskinner’s Book”, no hearts are eaten in “Cannibal Hearts”, there are no worms (and no heaven) in “The Worms Of Heaven” and there is neither gingerbread nor wolves in “Gingerbread Wolves”.

          Although a giant cat, a giant squid, and a number of electrified toads are killed in “Cannibal Hearts”, but all of them attacked first.

  11. It’s not just a new ruling class/priesthood. It’s also a new holy people. (Really, telling people who believe that everyone is a sinner (I’d say all men, but . . . Patriarchy) that they are not . . . Is setting themselves up as being more and better than humans.)

  12. “They can’t touch you unless you let them touch you. And since these are individuals with a severe emotional IQ deficit, it won’t be long before your quiet refusal to cooperate, flummoxes them, and they get bored, and move on to other, softer targets.”

    My problem, unfortunately, is that it’s not so much me who stands to suffer if I were to speak up under my own name — I have family members who could easily suffer if public backlash were directed onto them as well as me, or who would suffer very badly if, worst-case scenario, I lost my job and had trouble getting another one.

    It should, however, be admitted that this is a secondary reason at best. The primary reason is my own highly neurotic, and rather cowardly, dislike of conflict, especially with people who I have cause to like and respect outside the arenas of our philosophical disagreement. But the secondary reason is a strong discouragement from even attempting to overcome this primary personal flaw.

      1. Ah, but personally I feel compelled to believe that the mark of true friendship is to grant each other the indulgence to hold opinions which you will never ever agree on.

          1. Nope, “Holding onto idiocy and attacking you for not agreeing with the idiocy” is the problem.

            1. Depends on the idiocy. The more likely it is to bring problems, and more severe the problems, the more pre-emptive measures are wise.

            2. Not to me, Paul. I have enough on my plate without making room for people who want to hold on to obvious idiocy. People who hold onto idiocy and attack me for not agreeing never get close to being friends with me; they don’t get a complete conversation if I can escape. I usually ask, ” Is there someone I should call before you hurt yourself with that kind of thinking?” I make an escape while they turn blue and go, ” You, you, you …. “

            1. Yeah, but they don’t have a right to insist I publically debase myself for not being wrong along with them.

  13. Twice now, I’ve been engaged with SJWs who’ve told me I should ‘check my white male privilege’ (OK, so maybe I don’t get out much, at least to the ‘right’ places.). That’s right, two strikes before I even get up to the plate. When I told them I’d checked it that morning and it was working fine, they started gasping like beached carp. It will be interesting to see what happens when I run across one who doesn’t assume that the accusation of WMP will make its victim immediately collapse into a quivering ball of repentant remorse.

    1. “‘Privilege’? Oh, is *that* the word you’re substituting for ‘ability’ now? Or is it for ‘accomplishment’? I haven’t kept up on the newspeak, due to this Reality thing I’ve been dealing with all my life.”

        1. That or “acting white” which is popular in certain circles.
          Though from a statistical standpoint it might be more appropriately termed “acting Asian.”

          1. True story: friend of mine in grad school was attending a relative’s graduation from a technical university in Canada (they’re Canadian). The person is reading out the list of names, gets to friend’s relative, and a wiseacre calls out, “Hey! Who let a Canadian in?” He was the first Anglo across the stage and they were about a third of the way through the graduating class.

            1. Most grad students seem to be foreign students IIRC. My lab was odd in that we were half US persons. Never mind the comp sci and ee that were mostly Koreans, Japanese, etc.

              1. Very common, an American citizen with a STEM BS who can pass a background check can usually get a good job and add the graduate degree via night courses on their employer’s dime. Foreign nationals OTOH have a harder time getting hired so tend to roll directly into grad programs.

                1. Some also have the home government paying for their education. They keep going after degrees as long as the money flows. Who can blame them.

                  1. knew a Chinese guy who did that, and then got a job back home with a international that sent him here again for a bit more training and he used his free time to apply for several jobs here in the USA so he could get out of China.

          2. While sitting in laboratory waiting room pending attention of phlebotomist I caught part of a news story this morning about two kids who were among the dozen nation- (world-?) wide to get perfect scores on the AP Calculus test. Yep, one was a white male clearly exploiting his privilege. The other was the byblow of a Filipino mother and El Salvadoran father. He is apparently insanely obsessive about closely checking his work and making sure no careless mistakes occur. That would be that privilege thing, I guess: checking your work before handing it in.

        2. Like we keep it any secret. Hrm, maybe we should treat it as a Deep Secret of the Dark Arts. Might get some respect and actually be tried more often. Nah, would actually be evil to keep it quiet.

        3. Scalzi says we play the game on the easy setting. I say we are the ones who were taught the rules of the game. Public schools nowadays teach a false rule set.

          1. Scalzi says we play the game on the easy setting.

            So says the man who was never poor or even middle-class. [Frown]

              1. No, the easy setting does not entail storing one’s head between one’s glutes. Although … that setting is remarkably effective at preventing intrusion of unwanted facts.

                1. I mean, I understand this community’s beef with him as a member of the SFWA, but Old Man’s War was a dang fine book. If professional success is a game, he’s no button-masher.

                1. I read that post and it sounded like a pity party to me. It was very self focused Call the Waaaahmbulance..

                  1. Of course, we don’t know if he “suffered” those things or was just saying what “sounded good”.

              1. That might be “being ‘poor’ in the USA (as seen by someone not so)” but while my family was not monetarily wealthy, I have doubts we were truly poor. I do not recall worries about a roof overhead, transportation, or food and water.

                I have worries and concerns now, too, but they are less immediate one might say. If I stop to think about genuine necessities and how much beyond those I consider not merely normal but ‘default essential’ (which not the same as truly essential), I am living something fantastic. Could it be better? Of course it could.

                “Poor in the USA” is knowing disease is expensive, so spending limited money on vaccination. Being poor in some parts of the world is knowing disease will likely kill you as vaccination and treatment don’t exist for you. The first is perhaps mildly inconvenient (yes, someone had to make a choice). The second is fatal (no choice there). Helluva difference.

              2. Sounds like Scalzi hasn’t learned the differences between what one “needs”, “wants”, and “whim”. Poor is when you can’t meet a “need” without giving up some other “need” – basic health /safety /shelter /food tradeoffs.
                Perhaps instead of poor, he’s just impoverished — of imagination, empathy, etc.

                1. My first thought on the second item in the list (the one I led with) was, “Then sell the TV and solve two problems at once.”

          2. I frequently get the impression that everyone EXCEPT me was taught the rules.
            But that is OK, as I do not belong to any of the official Victim groups,and don’t have a sign that says “Handicapped”.

              1. I think I must disagree with you on this, Sarah. Think on how hard you found it to be the liberal in the publishing industry. Even those naturally so inclined must invest great effort to stay abreast of the current fashionable targets of their five-minute hates, and always on guard for the inevitable accusations of insufficient orthodoxy to The Code That Has No Rules.

      1. Never heard the term until now. Hitherto I tried to illustrate the problem by saying “Have you ever seen Planet of the Apes? No? Take notes on Dr. Zaius and get back to me.”

        (It’s amazing how few people have seen Planet of the Apes.)

        1. It was around when I was a kid, and it was A Big Thing, but it was never a thing of mine, so like much else (Jaws, Rocky) it was there, but I haven’t seen it – just the odd bits of it.

        2. Go read ESR’s Kafkatrapping—read it carefully and learn its lessons.

          Note that pointing out that your interlocutor is attempting a kafkatrap usually induces great and incoherent rage as his mind struggles to deal with a victim who won’t play by his rules. 😃

    2. Exactly the right sort of response, Bob. Laughing at them, whether overtly or just strongly implied, is something they have no way of coping with or opposing. Whatever strength they may have comes from their being taken seriously. If we refuse to do so, and if we can get others to follow us in not doing so, they become the powerless laughingstock we all know them to be.

    3. I’ve had Internet opponents assume I was not only white and male, but also rich. As someone who talks a lot about specifically American issues, I guess that, on the first two, you’ve at least got good enough odds that casinos wouldn’t use them. (And I am white.) But rich? Specifically, “the one percent”? Really?

            1. Oh, but he is! The same university that awarded Andrew Sullivan his medical degree in obstetrics…. 😎

          1. Palin may be biologically, phenotypically female, but she obviously identifies ideologically as a man, therefore it is hypocritical for her to claim status in a group with which she does not identify. Demonstrably, the quoted professor of religion is a pussy.

                1. Of course they do. You have to fit the box. You have to fit the label. If you don’t, then how can you be appropriately ranked as to how oppressed you are? Reject their idea of oppression and their power to place you in the box? Well, now you’re a threat to the system, and must be dealt with. Ridiculed, mocked, belittled, dehumanized at first.

      1. On top of the usual assumption that I’m a white single childless male, I’ve had people assume that just because my father was an Ambassador, we lived in a mansion, were rich, etc. etc.

        Point of fact, my father only paid off the mortgage for our little four-bedroom house about 6 months before he died and the land was a gift purchased by his parents before I was born; we only got a washing machine 4 months before he died and washed everything by hand in cold water, and one of the scandals that my father’s opponents tried to use when he was taking the panel examinations that would qualify him for the Ambassador rank was the fact that my father happily accepted several sets of winter-weight tailored suits from an attache friend who was going home and had no use for the suits. They made much of the fact that my father folded and re-hemmed the sleeves and pants legs so they looked like they fit, and that my Dad didn’t mind in the least that the suits did not quite fit him on the shoulders. The main complaint was “Should we really have an Ambassador too poor to buy his own suits, and too ‘uncaring’ of his image that he accepts and wears second hand suits? It’s an embarrassment!”

        I dressed very well but most people wouldn’t have known that the brand name clothes I wore I dug up from op-shops most of the time.

        1. Embarrassment?! Point of pride, I’d say. Practical. Effective. Also clearly not on the take. And sounds like someone a “regular Joe” could talk to and not feel like he was being looked down upon as one of the Little People and all that rot – and rot it is.

          My father once posed the situation: Two guys walk into a bank, each one seeks a loan. One well-groomed and in a very nice suit, the other with grease under fingernails and wearing stained overalls. Which one is more likely to get the loan? And now, which one do you know has actually done some work?

          1. Yeah, the fact that he comported himself like a regular Joe – because he was – was the reason why he was so popular in the Filipino community in Israel. Community barbecues? He’d be there turning the skewers over, beer in hand and playing with the kids. The folks would see him bicycling around during the Sabbath.

            My mother met his driver when she visited, after his death. The driver told her that my father got him interested in independent studying and reading after my dad had asked him a question about a place, and he was unable to answer. Dad told him that it was a bad attitude to have, to be uninterested in the place that he lives in and told him to read up on the place he’d asked about – he’d be quizzed the next time. My father’s approachability meant that his staff could ask him things like “Why do you have so many books?”

            Dad had a sense of humor he didn’t hesitate to unleash on his staff either, and at first they didn’t know how to respond to that. Discussing the colors of the ambassadorial car, Dad declared in a very serious tone, that he wanted it canary yellow, so that people would be able to pick out the car and go “There goes the Philippine Ambassador,” instead of “there goes some official person.” Informed that canary yellow was not available, he asked for baby pink. His staff were unsure what to make of their new Ambassador, and faltering, told him that it wasn’t an option either.

            “Fine, I want the car to be colored in all the colors of the rainbow then!”

            Certain that he was out of his mind, his poor staff tried to explain that it wouldn’t be available.

            Dad: “What color do you get if you mix all the colors together?”

            *several moments pass* “…Black?”

            “Well, there you go then.”

            1. Every time you share one of these with us, Shadow – I poke you about writing your father’s biography.

              It’s only getting stronger every time. I’m beginning to consider just how well armored I would have to be to fend off the frying pans if I were to come sit in your kitchen…

              1. Let’s ALL invade her kitchen! If she gets pregnant again, the whole family should descend on her for six months, to babysit and play with baby and make her tea!

                1. And with this crowd, we might be well enough armed to fend off the local fauna that long! *grin*

                  1. The worst we’ve seen are tiny little hoppy garden spiders. Rhys saw one jump on a fly that was bigger than it was, and utterly refuse to let go. When the fly was dead, the spider sat on it, apparently confused as to what to do next, but still refusing to let go.

                    The only other thing we’ve seen here are birds. Not quite the menagerie that we would see in Townsville. Certainly, I haven’t seen a ‘roo here, and it feels a little odd. Lots and lots of cockatoos and galahs and lorikeets though.

                    Oh oh! I finally saw an echidna when we were visiting kin in Melbourne! They’re like giant hedgehogs – hedgehogs a foot tall maybe? It was trundling along the side of the road.

                    If I ever get the dream plot of land let’s go hunt ferals =D

                1. If we visited, we’d bring Nemo. “Feed me Seymour!” is his motto.It’s from Little Shop of Horrors.

                1. I’d probably write a collection of stories about my dad; there’s one story that relates to his youth when he was running a little mimeographed newspaper, that his father related to my mom when Mom and Dad were still dating.

                  I probably would write collections of stories about them both, really. They lived in a completely different era and in retrospect I’m a little surprised that my father hadn’t gotten himself assassinated by an irritated wealthy person. For those wondering, assassinations are cheap, and not uncommon.

                  1. … running a little mimeographed newspaper,

                    Was he leader of a group of Boy Rangers, too? His name wasn’t the Filipino equivalent of Jefferson Smith, was it?

                    1. I don’t know if he was a boy ranger. I do know he used to go hunting with his father and older male relatives; and that they hunted and ate monkey, python, etc. Monkey paw, he says, tasted very good, but you had to get over the fact that when the monkey was skinned it looked uncomfortably familiar.

                      Python tastes like chicken, not impressively different.

                      My biggest problem about the storytelling is that I’d have to omit a lot of names or change names, since a few of the stories don’t paint certain personages in a positive light, and some of these people are still alive.

                      I’d also have these in a non-chronological order because I’d be likely to write them as my Mom remembers.

          1. *giggles into her coffee*

            You know what I don’t get?

            The stupid thing is, the people who tend to sling this sort of ‘devastating insult’ tend to themselves be female (I’d say they’re cunts, tbh) and that kind of flaming idiot doesn’t seem to have the mental capacity to imagine that if they’re a twat and they are online, surely there are women online who don’t agree with them.

            But for some reason it’s ‘easier’ to assume everyone who disagrees with them is a misogynistic single white Christian male.

            It’s like nobody else in the whole world exists or has access to the Internet.

    4. My reply was, “I did, and the balance on that and on my race card are still good. You might want to look at yours, though.” I managed to get out of throwing range before they got over their surprise.

      1. Checking my privilege? My drill sergeant in basic told me I had none and would NEVER have any, and I knew what he said was true because them drill sergeants KNOW.

    5. See what happens if you respond like this:

      “Well, let’s see… This morning I arose from my plush, oversized bed covered in exotic furs and stepped into the bath suite, where I was bathed, shaved, and anointed by three nubile female attendants of divers races. Once clean and fresh, I stepped upon the slidewalk to go to the dining hall, where I was seated at my enormous dining table made of exotic hardwoods, and served an extravagant breakfast by my wife. She then repaired to the small folding table in the cubby beside the main dining hall to consume her morning gruel.

      Seems pretty intact so far. What do you think?”

    6. Check [my] white male privilege“?

      That’s racist and identity imposing. I should be free to Slovak my white male privilege, Pole it, Croat it or even Hungarian it if that’s how I identify!

  14. The Jews are not responsible for Christ’s death; I am not responsible for slavery. Even if guilt were to be passed on, I’m good. My ancestors fought for the Union.

    1. Ah, but you are responsible for having benefited from slavery’s aftereffects, even if your ancestors fought for the Union (or, like mine, moved to another part of the Commonwealth where it was abolished peacefully later). You may not have been the one who tilted the playing field in your favour, but as long as you’re not actively trying to tilt it back to (what is claimed to be) a level position, you are (considered to be) part of the problem rather than the solution.

      Eric Raymond calls this the Model P kafkatrap: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful, racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive,…} system.”

      1. And even if you can not experience any vestige of how this “privilege” is helping you, and things that “never happen to white males because Privilege” keep happening to you, you are still ipso facto “privileged”.

      2. Hmm – I’m not a great student of Kafkaisms, probably need a wallet card with a numbered (lettered?) list of kafkatraps. I do know it frustrates the hell out of earnest SJWs to respond to their arguments only with a recognition and analysis of their argumentation technique.
        “You’re not taking me seriously!” — “err… given that line of argument, should I?”

        1. “You’re not taking me seriously!” (Laughing) “Nope. With that idea you’re pushing, how could I?”

      3. By the same token, the person chastising you for benefiting from being white is also (generally) the beneficiary of what other whites did in the past, in terms of ending slavery and developing the civilization around us. So, at an appropriate point in the conversation, you simply present them the bill, and turn the Kafkatrap around on them…

        Usually, this results in them freezing up long enough for you to get out of range of their idiocy. At best, it starts someone thinking.

    2. If guilt could be passed on through blood, then there would be grounds to enslave people for what their ancestors did. Pretty much all of us have ancestors who lost a war and ‘terribly immoral to lose’.

      I do think there is a case that the Democratic Party owes reparations as an institution.

      1. If guilt could be passed on through blood, we’d all owe each other reparations for what our ancestors did – and not all the supercomputers in the world could untangle how much each owed or was owed.

        1. Actually, it simplifies down to everyone being a capital felon, with punishment to be set at Judge’s discretion.

    3. WHAT?! You mean YOUR ancestors dragooned helpless Irish and German immigrants into your death regiments to DROWN the gallant sons of the men who gave your nation liberty in the first place in their gore?! IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TELLING ME?!

      Jes’ kiddin.

      And Christian antisemitism has always baffled me. Christ was a Jew; His mother was Jew; the man who raised him as His son was a Jew. If Christians should feel anything about Jews, it should be a filial affection.

      1. That could be on a T-shirt.

        “JUDAISM: good enough for JESUS.
        Good enough for YOU.”

        Down here at the buckle of the Bible Belt it would doubtless cause some consternation…

        1. Really? I hadn’t run into that… after all, Saul (before the Damascus road event) was known as a Jew of Jews, and Jesus came “not to replace the [Judaic] Law, but to fulfill it”. Jesus’ Judaism seems kinda obvious…

  15. Can’t remember the last time I’ve read an f-bomb in a theological argument (certainly not one this well written and I agreed with), but then there’s the BCT experience, which explains a lot.

    (Tank hill and “Forty rounds!”)

  16. Also, as Ace of Spades HQ indicated, Instapundit has this news item: “LIFE IN OBAMA’S AMERICA: Nashville library reminds local chapter of Black Lives Matter that segregated meetings aren’t permitted on public property. BLM blames — no, I’m not making this up — ‘white supremacy.'” (see

    Out here.

      1. Sniped! 🙂

        I’m still laughing over the sheer… idiocy… and wondering how they’d deal with someone who claims to be trans-black, or whatever the term is for when you believe you’re some other race than you were born as.

        1. If you want some laughs, read Godfrey Elfwick on Twitter. He satirizes the Crazy Left’s approach to race/gender/religion in such a deadpan manner that 90% of them don’t seem to see the joke. Warning: put down your beverage BEFORE reading.

          1. The idea of this was, evidently, to use two Mexican liqueurs/liquors, so in the grand old traditional of mixed drinks, a substitution could be made with something other than the tequila. And who says your drink has to limit itself by nationality or even region? Though I might consider starting with a white/light rum – but I could be horribly wrong.

      1. That shark jump occurred the second it became clear to the casual observer that their full name is Black Lives Matter More Than Anyone Else.

        1. Worse. “Blacks Killed By Cops = Evil” while “Blacks Killed By Black Criminals Doesn’t Matter”. [Frown]

          1. Cops are horrible racists who gun down blacks for no reason at all — and are the only people in America who can be trusted with guns.

            1. So they can’t help themselves?

              We have nice secure institutions for people who can’t help themselves and constitute a danger to themselves or others.

          2. It’s a union thing. Cops are not allowed to transgress the job responsibilities of Blacks, lest Blacks unemployment become worse.

      2. My favorite part of the article itself (excluding the comments about how racial discrimination is perfectly fine as long as its the right race being discriminated against) was the bit about how those poor BLM activists were forced to move their meeting to a church less than a mile away. How will the poor oppressed darlings ever survive such a hardship?

      3. Their fundamental problem is using an ineffective algorithm.

        1. When confronted by a perceived problem, yell loudly and wave arms about.
        2. If step 1 proves ineffective, yell even more loudly and wave arms about more vigorously.
        3. If step 2 proves ineffective, yel still more loudly and wave arms about wildly.
        4. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

        While this has been proven an effective means of problem resolution for infants, (e.g. soiled nappies, intestinal gas) it is not generally applicable to those who are not previously committed to the complainant’s well-being and happiness.

        1. Pretty much applicable to every SJW who’s not in a position to coercively deny people employment and/or expression. If their social situation was anything close to what they said it was, they’d have less chance of furthering their aims than the eleven-year-old girl who’s started yelling “TYRANT” at her mom.

          Also, reminded me of this:

        2. If you use effective algorithms, you might solve problems. Then what are you going to do? Go live your life, and indulge in quotidian goodness like all the riff-raff? No fun — it often takes time and money and effort, that quotidian goodness, and doesn’t let you get the pleasures of bullying and moral egoboo at once.

          1. If we had a serious, legitimate investigative press (and if pigs could fly …) there would be some fascinating journalism being done on the funding of the various protest groups, such as BLM (which we have already found is funded — at least in some cases — by some absolutely fascinating (cough*Soros*cough) interests.

            We might also ponder whether some of these college students protesting Eebil are maintaining sufficient grade point averages or whether they have received the same sort of soft grading that has historically been enjoyed by professional amateur athletes.

          2. Solving problems entails two risks for SJW/victimologist types:
            1 – You’d have to learn to identify a new problem to justify your social group’s existence – which is a different skill set than yelling and waving your arms, and so is HARD WORK!!
            2 – There’s the fear that you may run out of problems – and then what would you do?

              1. I really suspect many of them would abandon their social/victim group identification before they’d admit that. Of course, there are so MANY other victim groups to join, they wouldn’t have to change anything but their current set of acquaintances.

    1. Wonder how many of the remaining Civil Rights leaders from the 60s are shaking their heads at this idiocy that’s trying to roll back things they accomplished.

      1. More than a few of them are actively involved in the movement. There aren’t too many of the folks at the forefront that actually held ideals still around. Just hangers on like JJ or AS

  17. I never cease to marvel at how people who make a full-time occupation of NOT being Christian — neo-pagans — cling to precisely those features of self-styled-mainline Christianity I could not stomach in the first place. E.g., denouncing belief in “original sin”, and then selectively re-introducing it through the back door.

    I boggled when a certain Big Name Pagan suggested that the Holocaust was “group karma” because their — and her — ancestors were mean to the Canaanites way back when. She seemed oblivious to how many pogroms have been justified by invoking “group karma” for the Crucifixion.

    1. The jerkfaces you shall always have with you.

      But a lot of feminist religious studies people are open about claiming that all monotheism is Evil Patriarchy that must be destroyed (though of course it totally isn’t monotheism to say that all goddesses are one Goddess and that all gods are also part of the Goddess, because all monotheism is Evil Patriarchy). So if you proclaim that all monotheism must be destroyed and all monotheists are Evil Patriarchists, I would think you inevitably end up being a bit lukewarm about condemning the Holocaust.

      1. Then there are those who say the Frosts aren’t Real witches because they are (or were at one time) monotheists. When I respond “And Dianics aren’t?”, I never get a coherent reply.

  18. Honestly, the Members in Good Standing of this movement – the ones who list their psychological hangups the way some people put trophies on their shelves – really, really need help. Ridicule certainly gives them more of a dose of reality than the mad dash to sit at their lunch tables lest censure fall upon you, but it can’t be an answer in itself. These people have been spending years cultivating their fragility and, as a result, they have become genuinely fragile. So, above all, let’s show that we’re actually concerned for their well-being – which can’t be said of the flatterers they’ve amassed to tell them they’re beautiful and perfect just as they are.

    1. An SJW who has become genuinely fragile should be *broken*, or encouraged to break his or herself against the nearest “person of toughness”. This is the best way to limit the future harm they do to others.

  19. Why can’t ridicule be an answer in itself? Personally, I’m not particularly concerned for their well-being over and above that of the many others they’ve bullied into submission.

    1. Who said anything about prioritizing them? In point of fact, there’s no one in a more agonizing social position than the self-abasing lickspittle. But in this case, help for one is help for the other. No need to choose.

      1. I think we’re agreeing. I was intent on ridiculing the SJW church-ladies who are trying to get everyone else to admit their “privileges,” not particularly on ridiculing those weak individuals who agree to beat themselves up about such sillinesses.

        1. Come to think of it… yeah, your local sensitivities training hammer-swinger is probably not the same person as xxmoontearsxx on Tumblr, no matter how badly Ms. Moontears is under the influence of the former’s ideas. Duly noted.

  20. “No matter how much time and trouble you devote to steps 1 through 3. The militants have the final say.”

    Note that long-term SJW comment troll Chris Gerrib is currently being publicly sacrificed pour encourager les autres.

    He actually seemed to believe if he virtue-signaled hard enough, they’d eat the straight pudgy white guy last.

    You almost feel sorry for him.


    1. Having had the misfortune of dealing with Gerrib online, I can honestly say I have no sympathy for him. You reap what you sow. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving dough boy.

    2. Best part is he’s getting beat because he actually said something true (History isn’t just a tale of evil white people. It’s a tale of evil people) by another old white guy who just happens to have more of his bingo card filled.

        1. Bit off-topic, but I had to share: having finally got the full story on Genghis Khan, because all this recent rosy glow on him was making me antsy… turns out that in comparison to your typical Mongol warlord, he pretty much was a shining champion of justice. Would that he’d stuck exclusively to fighting Mongol warlords…

        2. Or at least was honest. For all the hagiographies out there there is a lot of stuff that is not in the popular histories. Cortez may not have been a great guy but he was merely a spark that lit a tinderbox and helped oust a lot of the South American Empires. Plains wars between Native American tribes did not suddenly start when Europeans arrived. And slavery is as old as history…notice that the etymology is of those from the Slavic states.

          But most of these people want to believe there was a golden empire in Africa and the Americas until those warlike europeans arrived. Pah. The whole idea of original sin in religion is that man is fallen. He is not always nice.

          1. Well, the thing is that Eurocentric histories aren’t honest. The SJWs are the flip side of Cecil Rhodes and crew–“History doesn’t start until the Euros show.”

          2. Sure. The Tlingit people in Alaska were pissed when the U.S. took over and freed all their slaves. They even erected a totem pole with a depiction of Abraham Lincoln in an attempt to shame the feds into giving them rightful compensation for their lost property (think of it as a public dunning notice).

            Note that this isn’t the story you’ll get from the tourist literature about that particular pole, however the actual story has been attested from numerous Tlingit sources.

            It’s impossible to have an honest discussion of slavery with an SJW, because such a discussion would force them to admit that, although virtually all peoples have had slavery (or some near-equivalent, such as serfs, subservient castes, etc.), it was the Evil White Men who a) first reached a large-scale agreement that slavery was wrong and b) actually took action to wipe it out.

            Where does large-scale open slavery still exist today? Not in the Evil White Man Lockean republics, that’s for sure. To the extent it does exist (e.g., forced prostitution) it’s hidden.

            Open slavery is found in “traditional” societies and “progressive” states, the salient difference being whether the slaves are private property or are owned by the government.

            1. it was the Evil White Men who a) first reached a large-scale agreement that slavery was wrong and b) actually took action to wipe it out.

              And had those Evil White Men not acted in such way, all today would be freed of the burden of desiring what they know is wrong. Had those Evil White Men just left things alone …

          3. If you ever want to blow someone’s mind, in discussing slavery in the Americas, tell them to go research the case law that established the legality of slavery. It isn’t a well known fact, but it is indeed the case that the lawsuit that turned indentured servitude with a fixed term into lifetime servitude was filed by a black man against another black…

            The case that really established lifetime servitude was filed by Anthony Johnson, who himself had been an indentured servant (for a fixed period), and his lawsuit against his own indentured servant, one John Casor, is the case that gets cited when people discuss how indentured service turned into lifetime chattel slavery. Ironically, the same courts that “gave” John Casor to Johnson later stripped Johnson’s family of their well-established plantation, giving it to whites.

            Given that the records and accounts of that period are somewhat fragmentary, one does have to wonder if perhaps Johnson wasn’t serving as someone’s catspaw, in order to get the precedent established. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the first legal slave owner cited by a Virginia court in the Americas was a black man, who sued for lifetime ownership of another black…

            An irony that’s not lost on me when I contemplate how many young black men are actually murdered by other young black men, while having to listen to all the BLM hype. Black Americans are really their own worst enemies, in so many ways.

            1. An interesting comment. But the Voices keep insisting on translating BLM into “Bureau of Land Management,” which makes the message rather odd… not as bad as when I see FSM in a technical mailing list and the Voices render it as “Flying Spaghetti Monster” instead of “Field Service Manual.”

    3. As far as I can tell, Gerrib’s doing just fine and just apologized for not being more clear on the panel in question, and not for any silly notion of “wrongthink”.

      1. I don’t think so. This is his second apology for (apparently) telling the truth.

        Note that one beth_bernobich is already raking him over the coals in the comments for being insufficiently comprehensive in his abject self-humiliation.

        Too bad he didn’t read Vox Day’s book or he’d know that there’s no turning back once you start down this road. They do not see an apology as an attempt to set things right. They see it as an indication of weakness.

        Your blood’s in the water, Chris, and the sharks are circling.

        1. I don’t expect gracious behavior from those who have axes to grind, including Oshiro. What I do appreciate is Gerrib’s decency.

          1. Mark Oshiro’s in on this witch-hunt too? Sigh. His read-through of Harry Potter was what first introduced me to this noxious “privilege” concept, but he seemed to retain a wonder and a benefit-of-the-doubt that’s not common among big-name privilege-mongers. It’s a pity he’s gone downhill since last I followed him.

    4. On one hand, I feel some grim satisfaction in seeing one of the SJW crowd getting the exact same treatment that’s been meted out to us of late. On the other hand, it *is* the same treatment we’ve received, and it’s still deplorable.

  21. So very, very true. I hear the words of the Illusive Man from Mass Effect 2

    “We’re at war. No one wants to admit it but Humanity’s under attack.”

    What makes us humans is now a crime. We have to become inhuman to be seen as acceptable by the Priest class. I’m not condoning racism, sexism, or any form of bigotry. In fact, I support the true meaning of those words, not the media spin definition that makes only certain individuals as victims and everyone else the oppressors no matter what the circumstances are. Unfortunately, most people want to believe the threat narrative, and will likely not notice what is actually going on until it is too late.

    It’s fun to be in the mob with torches and pitchforks, but it’s not so fun when the mob turns on you.

  22. The second article of faith in Mormonism is “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
    I reject inherited guilt. I reject inherited shame. I am not responsible for the actions, good or ill, of my ancestors.

      1. And Swedenborgians. “Every man is punished for his own sins and not the sin of Adam.”
        And “The Lord casts no one into Hell. The man casts himself”.

        But none of that deters the SJWs we were discussing.

        1. I think it’s important to note that Mormonism and Swedenborgianism differ with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism on the nature of original sin. The latter three state not just that all are tempted because of Adam’s sin but that all died in Adam. See Romans 5:12-21. It’s that first sin where the whole human race participated and is guilty; after that, Adam’s headship was broken and subsequent sins didn’t involve everybody (although individuals certainly do learn some sins by copying parents and other authority figures).

  23. Personally I think its the Alinsky handbook gone viral. The Hildabeast and the Obamanation have used it to wide and far reaching depths. Can you blame the SJWs for wanting that same kind of power?

    The only thing to do is for the Alinksky book to be used against them. That’s the only time the SJWs feels the burn.

    1. “The only thing to do is for the Alinksky book to be used against them.”

      The problem is you can’t fully use it and remain within the law. See union thuggery, “no justice, no peace”, “burn, baby, burn”, etc. It would involve implementing a low level civil war for 10+ years. Which is precisely what the Left has been doing, or making the credible threat of doing, since the 1960s.

      Malcolm X was more explicit than most: “Deal with Martin by giving into all his demands, or deal with me burning your city down.”

  24. Own Your Privilege

    If a Social Justice-weenie asks, say, “Why do you wallow in your privilege?”,
    Agree with them wholeheartedly, and then you go a step further. Reply as follows:

    “It’s because we are stupid, myopic, greedy, arrogant, treacherous, war-mongering, and wholeheartedly without a single ounce of love for our fellow man.”

    Then go “above and beyond the call of duty”:

    “…And if only we were as wise, as generous, as peace-loving, as respectful, as tolerant, , as visionary, as clear-headed , as you (so obviously) are, then naturally, an era of encompassing and lasting peace would ensue on the entire planet. Why do you ask?”

    Ideally, all this should be said entirely innocently, in a matter-of-fact manner, without the slightest hint of irony in the tone of voice or the facial expression. Somewhat like Tom Hanks in the movie Forrest Gump. Because when you speak in this manner, of course, all you are doing is ape the self-serving litany that most SJWs are parroting in the first place

  25. Brad Torgerson wrote:
    “Again, this whole thing . . . it ‘aint about equality. Church Lady doesn’t give a fuck about equality.”
    Torgerson is right. This isn’t about equality. It’s about power.

    1. And for the few here wondering, that’s from ‘Why We Fight: Prelude to War’ which is something worth watching every few years. The parallels are, alas, increasingly terrifying. The names and actors will change but the evil itself, and the inertia letting it grow, is the same old thing.

  26. “Perfectability of Man” is the highest stupidity to which the educated mind can attain.

    “Original Sin” was the name of a delightful pipe tobaccco, redolent with Latakia and Smyrna (and best of all: NO artificial aromatic or flavoring agent) that has, unfortunately, gone off the market.

  27. You are wholly responsible for the sins of your father.

    Unless the sins of your father are wholly responsible for you.

    The epidemic of affluenza is growing… Particularly among the young wealthy residents of colleges these days.

  28. For some years now, there has been a strain of American Civil War criticism and scholarship, predominantly by minority scholars, that claims slaves were not freed by white Northerners, but that they freed themselves. Being a Civil War enthusiast, I note that this argument seizes upon various actions by slaves and feed slaves, points out various racist actions by certain Union parties, and then leaps to the conclusion that the actions by former slaves were solely responsible for their freedom. This argument has become a mantra in revisionist Civil War scholarship.

    This position has the benefit of negating any contribution, in treasure or lives, of whites toward the freedom of slaves. It also permits the proponent to further assert that slaves freed themselves in spite of the racist and oppressive actions of the Union. So, “we did it all ourselves are are beholden to none.” becomes the basis for further radical posturing and claims.

      1. I’m actually a bit more than a Civil War buff and could answer with a small book. But let’s try this one argument .

        Some assert that a common pattern in the advance of the Union armies was to pass though an unemancipated area and drive off the Rebs in residence. The slaves, whose owners had fled the marauding Union hordes were now without supervision or coercion. The would pack up their meagre belongings and being marching somewhere — usually to an area they perceived as unlikely for reoccupation by the Confederates. The act of walking away was unilateral self emancipation. No Union officer got up and said, “Y’all are free.” Thus the slaves freed themselves. By themselves. Without assistance. Nobody else gets credit. Claiming credit is racist.

        After many examples of the above happened, the small groups of fleeing slaves combined into a formidable number and decided to camp out near a Union army location, feeling that the blue coats were their protectors. But they were treated badly, so had to combine in brotherly solidarity and demand their rights of the northern racists. And claim them as self freed men, women, children, and other flavors — who had created a just and egalitarian society well before its time. By themselves and without any assistance from anybody.

        Actually, the latter is not as far fetched as my sarcasm would indicate.

        Thus — although the actual events with slaves and freedmen did occur — the conclusion that slaves freed themselves in a vacuum without a Union army or an Emancipation Proclamation is, IMHO, an artifact of political correctness and revisionist history.

Comments are closed.