The Hateful Logic of Hitler, And Jana Shortal

According to the psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, there are two kinds of identity politics. “Good” identity politics is the Martin Luther King-style “Take my hand and walk a mile in my shoes with me” of the Civil Rights era. The other, “Bad” identity politics is tribal, completely lacking in empathy for others. Over the last thirty years, the bad style of identity politics has replaced the good style on the American Left.

“[Bad identity politics is] based on the Bedouin notion: “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me my brother and cousin against the stranger.” It’s a very general principle of social psychology. If you try to unite people: “Let’s all unite against them. They’re the bad people. They’re the cause of the problems. Let’s all stick together.” That’s a really dangerous thing to do in a multiethnic society.”

Jonathan Haidt

There is no substantive difference anymore between identity politics of the Right and what has developed on the increasingly regressive Left. They are both the “bad” variety. That is why I constantly say they are both poison. That both groups use the same “us versus them” black and white thinking is obvious. What is less obvious is that they use the same rationale for positioning the “other.” And they both go beyond mere hate to visceral disgust. The only difference is who they hate. The Right-identitarians hate Jews and non-whites. The Left-identitarians hate whites and males, with white males being the most hated group of all (the strangers). The “Me, my brother, our cousin” alliance at this time includes women, racial minorities, the LGBTQ community and Islam.

Continue reading “The Hateful Logic of Hitler, And Jana Shortal”

Toxic Masculinity Furor: More Feminist Projection

By now we have all seen the overtly ideological Gillette ad urging men to be better. No one seems to disagree that men could be better, but the ad’s male-bashing and shaming were not countered by any positive images of men. It was a propaganda film right out of the mind of feminism’s own Leni Riefenstahl, Kim Gehrig, and Orwell’s 1984.

Whether it is ultimately good or bad for society, it struck me as a desperate exercise in finger pointing by feminists. It tackled issues that are human, bullying and sexual harassment, but blamed them squarely on men. Why? Because women actually have a lot to answer for where “toxicity” is concerned.

Women learn the Middle School Mean Girl Guide to Toxic Relational Aggression by heart as girls. Girls also physically bully (is it toxic masculinity when they do it?), but female-style relational aggression is more insidious and safer than the straight-forward male physical version. It is all about manipulation. It consists of “frenemies” destroying relationships and self-esteem through rumors, lies, innuendo, false accusations, criticism of clothes and appearance, and shunning or exclusion. Many of these behaviors occur behind the victim’s back.

Continue reading “Toxic Masculinity Furor: More Feminist Projection”

Recovering Feminist

I got hooked in the usual way. I truly like women as people and see them as equal, and as a college student I was deluded into thinking there was some value in feminism because of its institutional power in academia. I was open-minded enough to accept their “critique” of men and society as a valid viewpoint, although I disagreed with some. And I was fine with losing “privilege” and power for the cause. Neither was really a loss since I had never felt I had any rights or privileges over women.

When people tell you to “educate yourself” as much as feminists do, they are telling you who they are. They are people who think “two plus two equals five” and can’t really explain why. If they thought two plus two equaled four, they would gladly explain how they got there to anyone who needed to know. Anyone with a little objectivity can see that modern feminist “theory” is completely self-serving nonsense. It is one Big Lie buttressed by many smaller ones. For a smart guy, I cannot believe what a fool I was.

Being open-minded, however, it took me a long time to realize that there is nothing wrong with feeling disgust when you are confronted by certain kinds of criticism. If people say they oppose group hatred and prejudice but are libeling and shaming you for being the person you were born as, or if people are holding you to impossible standards of behavior but accept no standards for their own, you should feel disgusted. These people are delusional or hypocrites at best.  They are pure evil, akin to some of the worst actors in history, at worst. Continue reading “Recovering Feminist”

Grievance “Scholarship”

“The law of gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.”

—O’Brien, talking to Winston Smith in 1984

Grievance scholarship is ideologically focused scholarship, not legitimate inquiry into topics like race or gender. In that sense, grievance studies are no different than university study under a totalitarian regime like Naziism or Stalinism. Or Big Brother. The point of inquiry is not increased knowledge, it is to advance the ideology. It is propaganda to advance the Big Lie. Grievance studies professors are not so much liberal arts scholars but missionaries: they do not exist to investigate the world but to change it.

The Big Lies around which all grievance studies are organized is the theory of intersectional group oppression and its solution—“equity.” They are just-so stories appropriated from Marxist theory that contain a kernel of truth, but also massive, fatal flaws. The theory’s essential purpose is to justify the ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) of the theorizers. You can tell this by simple reasoning: “Hate” in itself is not a societal problem for grievance theory. Only the supposed hate of men for women or whites for blacks is a problem for society. The very real hatred of (some) women for men and (some) blacks for whites is never an issue. Continue reading “Grievance “Scholarship””

Who Are The Real Fascists?

fascism 
noun
fas·cism | \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of fascism 
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

The people who think Donald Trump is a fascist generally do not know what they are talking about, because they cannot define fascism.  They tend to accuse Trump of racism and then conflate racism and fascism. Alternatively, they call Trump a dictator and then conflate that with fascism. There is slim evidence he is either racist or dictatorial, and in any case, there is more to fascism than those two factors.

On the other hand, no one suspects the Regressive Left of being fascist because fascism has historically been considered a right-wing phenomenon, a perception reinforced by leftist rhetoric. Is this a false perspective? Are there possibly stealth fascists lurking on the Left?

Continue reading “Who Are The Real Fascists?”