Depaul University President on White Men

You have probably heard of the events regarding Milo Yiannopoulos’s trip to America where he gave a speech at Depaul University.  Social justice warriors tried to shut it down, but Milo in turn embarrassed the university for it’s poor handling of the protesters and it’s support of the radical left.  I do find it a bit odd that Depaul University is apparently a Catholic university, and their president is a priest.  Don’t they have an objective moral code and tradition they want to adhere to?  Apparently not because their president wrote this letter in response.  The president is himself an sjw priest and I noticed a particularly juicy bit of irony in his letter.

You see, he is in France right now to commemorate the American, Memorial Day in which troops are remembered specifically for their sacrifices in World War II.  He wrote a bit about white men having white male privilege because they are commonly found in top positions of every major industry, and he feels this must change, contrary to Milo’s statements that white, male privilege is made up.

The ironic bit is that this priest is visiting graveyards full of white men that died, sacrificing their lives to remove evil from the world.  Don’t be misled by his statement that “men and women” gave their lives so others could have freedom.  The military of yesteryear was much less interested in putting females into combat.  The ratio of male to female deaths just on D-Day, in combat, in France in WWII could conservatively be set at 2000:1.

So here we have a social justice warrior talking about white, male privilege in a place which one might think, vigorously disproves the theory of any conspiratorial white, male privilege.  May those men rest in peace.


The Left is Not Motivated by Love but Hate

Again, the Left is About Hate.  I just read about the US President asking the world to morally evolve whilst on his trip to Japan.  The Left presents themselves as on a mission to evolve humanity.  They believe there is an arrow or direction of progress in time.  The future is necessarily more leftist, progressive, and “fair” than at any time before it.  This is at least how they present themselves, but in reality, they are hateful, deceptive, lying, hypocrites.  Don’t believe any of their tripe.

The future for them is one in which their enemies have finally been punished, this is what is implied when people like Obama talk about moving towards justice, the enemies of the Left will have finally been brought down and themselves exalted.  The reality is that some people simply achieve more than others, and thank God.  Without people striving, their wouldn’t be iPhones for the poorest people on the planet.  For those that sought greatness, some were rewarded, many failed.

But the Left is different, they sit and watch and seethe as they see others enjoying their lives.  Obama tries to portray himself as this moral being, and yet the majority of his time is spent calling others evil.  His entire existence and career is defined by attacking people who succeeded and calling them evil.  No great moral problem has been solved by him.

He has attacked the British(for wanting to leave the EU), wealthy people, white people, gun owners, business owners, Catholic nuns, Christians, fraternities, soldiers, and the list goes on but not once has this great and moral man mentioned anything about the slaughters that Muslims commit, or the shootings that drug gangs perpetrate, or the rapes by migrants of women and men in Europe, or the corruption of his friends in South America.  You would think a man who is so moral, who strives for justice would attempt to solve these issues we all see wouldn’t you?  The reason this morally evolved man hasn’t resolved any of these perpetual problems is because that isn’t what he is about, he isn’t moral, he is full of hatred.

The problem of the Left can’t be addressed until they are better understood.  The assumption that the Left are compassionate people but with a mistaken viewpoint is wrong.  They are actively seeking to do damage to people, the evidence is mounting.

University Women’s Center on Policing Masculinity

Universities are creating “healthy masculinity” events to teach men that everything they know about masculinity is false and if you disagree then you are “policing masculinity”.  This story has come to my attention about the phenomenon.  It is a new trick the ever-creative academics are using which has been discussed before.  Policing masculinity is disagreeing with feminists about what masculinity is, and we certainly wouldn’t want to be policing anything(policing being a terrible thing to do), so ideally we should just go along with whatever the academic feminists are saying, right?

Academic feminists have done this before.  They will argue that a real man is a man that stays at home with the children whilst his wife, the corporate executive, goes out as the breadwinner.  When someone objects to this, perhaps mentioning rightly that such a man is not very attractive, the academic types will argue you are “policing masculinity”.   This, they claim, is the last resort of the misogynist male, to assert that masculinity is not a fluid definition, but that it means something, and that meaning is rooted in the historic patterns we have observed of the sexes.  They smear this attempt as an irrational attempt to save toxic masculinity.

So what is toxic masculinity according to them?  Things like playing sports, studying business, desiring sex, and not crying.  (A side note: these seem to be the same things women are being encouraged to do.)  So by objecting to this rather stupid list, you are policing masculinity and you need to stop.

But I ask, why did men do these things in the first place?  If they had been brain-washed into following toxic masculinity, why was it decided that they would be brain-washed into playing sports and studying business and not anything else?  Who came up with these things to brain-wash men with? Was it the Pope? Was it Biggie and Tupac?  Who?

Apart from the delusional idea that a widespread conspiracy is how men wound up liking business and desiring sex, there is another problem with feminists telling men to stop policing masculinity.  They themselves are policing masculinity.  You see, to them, masculinity is not found in competitive, active activities, or in the pursuit of wealth via business, or in the desiring of sex with women so don’t you dare say that it is.  How dare anyone claim that men might actually want to climb a corporate ladder.  This is to be discouraged.  To them, men should not do that.  They are enforcing morality among men by restricting so called “toxic masculinity” which is precisely what policing is.

So these university feminists have once again shown that they are hypocrites.  I don’t think we have reached the point that no one takes them seriously anymore, there is still a large segment of the population that would like the things they are saying here.  But it should be obvious that these people are the ones policing masculinity, not the ordinary people doing what comes naturally to them.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Conservatives are associated with things like the free market, traditional family values, and the military and it is hard to see what any of these things have to do with each other.  But I think each of these has the same root cause.  Liberals on the other hand, are associated with essentially the opposite of each of those things.  They dislike the free market, preferring heavy handed regulations.  They dislike traditional family values.  They also dislike spending on military forces.  So is there a defining thing about each of these groups that would lead to these separate beliefs?  I think there is, let me explain.

Conservatives believe all men are capable of corruption, i.e. taking a good thing and making it bad and I think they would say that about themselves as well.  So conservatives accept what is, they see humans as essentially flawed beings and in order to preserve the good bits, they seek to prevent situations where the bad is likely to come out.

Liberals on the other hand believe only other people are capable of corruption, but not themselves.  They see something ordinary and believe it to be wrong and that they themselves know better.  Their solution is to overturn what is well established in place of what they want for themselves.

So conservatives support free markets where we can think of trade as being between any number of people.  Liberals want to obstruct it because they view the parties involved as corrupt.  But conservatives ask “are you mad?”, “How would adding another human party into this reduce corruption”?  They know that the regulators and overseers are just as likely if not more so to be corrupt than anyone else, so the net odds that someone involved in trade is corrupt increase because liberals are simply just adding a third party to the transaction.

Conservatives support traditional family values because they know that an “anything goes” mentality will probably lead to everyone being unhappy and worse, potentially a nation in ruins.  Liberals do not view themselves as being capable of immorality so they disregard this and instead view conservatives as closeted perverts that are trying to ruin the fun for liberals.  So they push forward to overturn anything the conservatives say, viewing them with suspicion.  Again, only other people are immoral but not themselves.

Conservatives support a military because they know people can be corrupted and where a good thing exists, other people will want to steal it for themselves.  So to protect themselves from outside savages, they construct a military.  A military is to a nation what personal protection and security are to an individual.  Liberals instead view the military as the cause of and not the protection for nations attacking other nations.  Their hatred of other men leads them to essentially victim blame a nation for being attacked.  Of course, we notice likewise that liberals have banned personal protection as well, viewing those with private arms as threatening.  But those same liberals will probably arm themselves.  Entire nations have been disarmed this way.

So the pattern is that conservatives view all people as being capable of evil, whereas liberals view only other people besides themselves as being evil.  Liberals will even view their own kind apart from themselves as being evil.  You might note the intense infighting they engage in, or for example, the assassination of the communist Trotsky by other communists.  Liberals will argue for this or that policy, but in reality they have a pathological bias against other people which should be factored in when trying to debate them or understand their policies.

Google’s Legalize Love Campaign and the Left’s Mono-Culture Vision

Don’t forget that three years ago, on July 7, 2012, Google announced their Legalize Love Campaign.  The basic idea was to pressure countries to view LGBT issues in the same way that Google’s employees do, i.e. a San Francisco, California, West Coast, leftist view of LGBT issues.  The left has this way of strongly disliking it when conservatives suggest modifications to other cultures but they are perfectly fine with doing it themselves while insisting that they highly value plurality and diversity. The idea of a mono-culture in Europe is an offensive one, it ignores the real differences between people and ignores the reasons behind those differences, assuming that disagreeable differences are the result of ignorance of the offending party.  Google is of course another of these groups who practise a sort of solipsism, accusing others of being ignorant while ignoring what they have to say.

The way Google would execute their campaign was not clear, but it suggested it would operate on government officials but likely they would also use their popularity to their advantage.  They have been known to be political in the past such as recently when they published research that took shots at conservatives.  Or when they made a gay doodle for Valentine’s Day in 2014.  Or when they took a shot at Putin during the Olympics.  For what it’s worth, I am no fan of Putin but the point is that Google clearly has an agenda and they use their search engine to advance that agenda.

I was surprised to see that the countries that Google would target first for their campaign were Poland and Singapore.  They claim Poland is a country they have had issues with as far as gay employees so this was their motivation.  However, in 2013, it seems that Poland and Egypt were tied at 97% of the search engine space being dominated by Google.  Egypt also has roughly double the population of Poland and LGBT rights are virtually non-existent.  Poland actually has never made homosexual acts criminal whereas they were forbidden in Egypt.  Poland had a much stronger record as far as “rights” go for LGBT persons.  Egypt also had a Google office.  Egypt would seem to be an equal if not better candidate for the campaign instead of Poland.

The same goes for India which has a much larger population than Poland, and multiple Google offices.  India also has made gay sex illegal with harsh penalties.  Google also had 97% of the search engine market share of India.  India was also not selected.

The reality is that Google does not want to do anything that isn’t PC.  Poland is a European nation and predominantly Catholic whereas the other nations I mentioned are not.

It is a particular type of arrogance to argue for diversity whilst ignoring European diversity.  Countries in Europe have different perceptions of marriage.  The European Union, which of course has similar tastes to Google, founded on the leftist idea of ending nationalism, is likely crumbling apart because the differences between nations within Europe were ignored and it was assumed all could assimilate to a mono-culture under which all would then be able to happily coexist.  Instead, all the experiment has done presently is bring resentment and ironically, various nationalist groups have risen to power.

Google lives in a bubble.  It has its own hiring practices, and its own values, opinions, and culture and it believes these things make it superior to other groups that do not agree with them.  Google is made up of counter-culture, geeky, pseudo-intellectual types who are leftists.  It is distasteful for them to assume that Europe would be better if it reflected Google’s own ways of doing things.  Much as the EU has made poor assumptions, I think Google has great potential to be harmful as it tries to spread its propaganda. Google has increasingly been becoming political lately, and it will probably continue to try to push an assimilation message on people it disagrees with.

Resentment and Enlightenment in a PC World

It is often the case that we westerners hear that in the past, our actions were primitive, cruel, misogynist, racist, or offensive in some way.  Usually, a promulgator of politically correct thought brings up the past to show where we are presently or where we are heading.  Often, these people use the terms “modern” and “enlightened” to describe the PC narrative they advertise.  However, I often find that rather than being enlightened or modern, the underlying and unspoken motif is primitive human resentment disguised as good.

Recently, there have been some news stories about Abercrombie and Fitch and its future direction.  The company has had declining profits and several items of negative press attention for failing to rapidly conform its advertising to PC ideology.  The brand is of course more of a teen brand but it is very well known and I think in some ways iconic of American fashion.  I am not trying to promote them and have no concern for their future but I never had an issue with how they advertised, I thought it was brilliant.  They advertised using sexy images such as muscular men and attractive women that conform to a sort of elite, US east coast, image.

They were under fire for doing this.  A Muslim woman who was wearing a head dress while working filed a lawsuit for discriminating against her.  As well, the CEO in the past has been known to say that he wanted the brand to be for attractive people, meaning, not fat people.  This was part of the brilliance of their advertising.  They made their clothes seem exclusive and they knew they could do this by using attractive sales people and images.  Sex sells, anyone in touch with humanity would know this.

However, this attracted a lot of negative attention.  Their declining profits, in my opinion, were not a result of a change in attitude about sexuality, but instead a relentless campaign to smear the brand as being hateful.  As they now have a new CEO, reporters are picking up on their new sales strategy.  They are giving up their sexy image, no longer hiring only sexy staff, and some people that opposed their old image are actually nostalgic for it.  I may be reading too much but the nostalgia comes from a lingering desire.  We desire attractive people, that doesn’t change, and so it certainly doesn’t change in just 5 years.

The new campaign, we are told, will aim to be more diverse and inclusive.  The brand also began to sell plus size clothing in an attempt to generate more revenue.  A combination of high prices while the economy stagnated or declined, rising obesity levels, and incredible hostility toward  the brand for its inclusive advertising likely caused the decline in profits.  But we are told instead that people have just become more enlightened from that bygone era of just a few years ago.

I don’t think sexuality has changed but I do think negativity can ruin a brand’s reputation.  If Abercrombie and Fitch loses money, it doesn’t personally matter much to me.  What does bother me is when people try to disguise their resentment as enlightenment.  It is no surprise that the people that led the campaign against A&F were the people that did not fit the image.  This is what people should be looking at.  Rather than creating a narrative about old, outdated views being triumphed over by a new, modern, enlightenment, I think people should know that indeed attractive people are attractive and this is simply nature and won’t change so it is best not to give ourselves anxiety over it.  The people that are championing “modern enlightened” views often suffer from indignation, resentment, and jealousy, some of the most ancient and primitive of negative human traits.

The old ways are correct.  Sex sells, and attractive people are attractive.  Enlightenment is seeing reality, not trying to hide it.  This is often the case with PC messages, that they are resentment disguised as enlightenment.

A Criticism of the Scottish National Party

I will be writing about the political situation in the UK, in particular, Scotland and how they are doing things completely wrong.  This will be one of those posts.

The Scottish National Party, in its present formation, is actually a very radically left wing political party.  Oddly enough, UKIP has come under attack for being too nationalistic when they claim that people in England are having their lives dictated by people in the EU but the SNP has not when they claim something very similar about themselves.  The reason for this is because the SNP is so left wing.

In fact, the SNP most closely resembles one of those people’s parties in South America.  I think of Hugo Chavez’s party, the People’s Socialist Party, when I think of the SNP. There are a lot of similarities, like the reliance on nationalised oil, accusations of foreign imperialism, etc. I can only hope Scotland rights its course before it is too late and Scotland becomes just like Venezuela, a socialist nightmare.

Let’s look at some of the things the SNP says.

First of all, one thing the socialist Scottish leaders dislike is the way land is distributed in Scotland.  432 people own approximately half the land.  This isn’t equitable enough for them, there is no scientific reason for why that isn’t equitable, 432 is a lot of people and they only own half the land, what of the other half?  More likely, the issues arises because of who the 432 people are, namely, old landowning families that have had the land for centuries.  In part, these people are disliked because of their association with England, having had their land granted to them or won in wars, and in other part because these people have the land simply because they inherited it.

The idea that someone could inherit something is disliked by socialists because to them it seems unearned and yet they feel they are just as deserving themselves but they didn’t get that inheritance.  The solution for them seems fair enough, simply confiscate the land because a majority of people don’t have it.  But this is no more fair or democratic than how the land came to be owned by some family in the first place, in fact, it is a nearly identical process.  Land confiscation is an elitist act.  An elite gathers adherents and then performs a confiscation and yet somehow this is more equitable than people inheriting land their families wanted them to inherit.  Worse, it tramples over the idea of ownership by removing ownership from people and placing ownership decisions in the hands of leaders of the government.

Granting government so much power is an incredibly bad idea.  You will regret it, I assure you.

No country that has become socialist has ever recovered, it completely changes the culture for the worse.  Corruption becomes an everyday part of life, laziness and lechery as well.  Government offices and officials, once installed in to power, never leave and they continue to grow.  Economic growth and an interest in new innovation becomes stifled because of the expense of doing anything new, never to return.  Look at Eastern Europe, look at France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and all of South America.  These places are absolutely not centres of innovation or freedom, their economic histories have been overturned, their present growth is nil.  Don’t become like them.  It seems people never learn their lessons from history, each new variation of socialism is presented as a solution that will usher in a new era of splendour, but it never does.  It only spells catastrophe for any country that adopts it.

So what will the socialists do with the land they conquered from the old families?  What wonderful, new, innovations will they bring that will usher Scotland to modernity?  They will give it to farmers.  Yes, the great innovation is to begin using confiscated land for one of the oldest purposes known to mankind, farming.  I hate to say it but it seems the farming horse has already bolted.  There is very little value to the world for new farms.  Only if the market demands new farms should there be any.  In this case, the farming is going to be done for emotional reasons, because people like the idea of poor farmers finally having their chance, and not because any of it is necessary for Scotland.  Since the farms won’t be needed, the government will then require people buy from these farmers by restricting imports and claiming these farms are better because they are regulated and “green” and call the whole thing a success.  All it means is that these new farmers, selected by the government, will be made wealthy because the government favoured them, and not for any good economic reason and then they will begin to seem a lot like those old families everyone hates.

Let’s just keep in mind that what everyone wants isn’t necessarily what is best.

Another thing we are told about the SNP is they dislike imperial England.  This is a trope heard all over the world, that somehow the imperial England of the past has caused all of these problems for everyone.  This is actually just excuse making.  Greece is doing something similar right now, claiming that their current financial problems are a result of an agreement they made over war reparations with Germany over 50 years ago that has absolutely nothing to do with their problems collecting tax and overspending on socialist innovations.  Scotland is doing the same.  It becomes leftist, nothing good happens, so it blames old imperial England for doing something vaguely in the past.  Roger Scruton claims the Scots are motivated by revenge on England, I never thought this was true but if it is, if the Scots want revenge on England, then make yourself freer and outcompete them.  England’s greatest advantage is its economic freedom.  Scotland has the tenacity and talent to be able to put to good use more freedom.  Blaming England is just an excuse.  Adam Smith used the term “invisible hand” to describe the market, it is fitting that Scotland should be more free and put this hand to use.  The quote by Boswell,

The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”

should be reversed.  You can’t do that with socialism.

Lastly, the SNP wants a more equal society.  This is such nonsense, such tripe.  All this ever means is that laws will be made to favour some people and not others and it will devolve in to litigation, media frenzies, and resentment of each other.  There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in Scotland, you don’t need more immigrants to make yourselves better, and you don’t need to give Parliament incredibly vast powers to settle silly petty issues between men and women.  The best places to live on the planet have continuously moved towards more freedom, Scotland should do the same.

I will repeat, get rid of the SNP, it is not pro Scotland, it is a hateful group that resents Scotland.  Left wing politics will never win, you simply can not expect to win by giving power to fewer and fewer hands.  Cut your taxes, get rid of the socialists, let the free market sort out who owns land rather than government, and begin anew.