The Weapon Of Language

Note: There is a new post up at Taki. This week the topic is a written version of the podcast from last week, slimmed down for space reasons. There is a review of the 1960’s classic Easy Rider up behind the green door. It is also available to those who buy me a beer. Finally, Sunday Thoughts, a half hour podcast recapping the news of the week, is also up behind the green door. There is also a post up on American renaissance by from the weekend, for those who missed it.

In a world where the end always justifies the means, even when the end is not achieved, truth must always be a secondary consideration. In fact, the truth is often the enemy, as it serves the interests of your opponents. By attacking the truth of something, or even the concept of truth itself, you take away the legitimacy of the opposition to you and your schemes. When morality is determined by who wins, rather than by some objective standard, partisanship is the new morality.

This is the modern age. You see it in the language. The public space is full of people juggling neologisms that have a nice ring to them as a replacement for old words or labels. They sound better and the best people always love hearing new ways of saying old things. It makes them feel smart and sophisticated. The intellectual in a liberal democracy is primarily concerned with appearing to be unconventional and heterodox, so the new words and phrases quickly become popular.

George Orwell said political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, which is almost always the point of the new words and phrases that come to dominate the discourse. The people introducing them are not trying to clarify some point, but rather to obfuscate. The game is to undermine the truth of some concept in order to put something long settled up for debate. The new word changes the old meaning in a way that makes it less settled.

The popular phrase “social construct” is a good example. There is no such thing as a social construct as currently understood. Into the 20th century people would have laughed at the idea of it. There are customs and institutions, for sure, but those are things that evolved within a people over a period of trial and error. The reason a custom has been passed down may have been lost to time or turned into an amusing bit of mythology, but the custom came into being to address a problem.

The social construct, on the other hand, takes the custom or institution and recasts it as an invention, a thing that is true only because of a set of rules. Further, it smuggles in the idea that it was deliberately invented. Men, and it is always men, sat around dreaming up the new social conventions to serve their interests. This strips the custom of legitimacy by casting it as just a partisan interest. The people wishing to change it are just as legitimate as the people who invented it.

The new term for custom disconnects it from truth by shifting the thing from the domain of things that are true on their face to the domain of things that are true only because of a set of logical rules. Humans come in two sexes, male and female, is a thing that is true on its face. The term social construct shifts this from the world of fact to the world of logical rules by insisting gender, another new word, is determined by society. They now claim gender is assign at birth based on antiquated concepts of gender.

What the phrase social construct permits the partisan to do is to smuggle in the idea that something like sex was an invention of men, and it is always men, to serve the interest of the inventors. On the one hand, the roles assigned to those with a uterus served the interests of the patriarchy. Now we are told that those same men made gender binary in order to oppress the non-binary. The concept of the social construct turns objective reality into an intergenerational conspiracy theory.

One of the ways the political neologism smuggles in lies is that it creates a false dichotomy in the minds of the audience. In the case of sex and sex roles, things are either purely nature or purely nurture, with nurture always assigned the default position in the comparison. Sex roles, for example, are either a social construct or a universal fact of nature. Since few things are the latter, the former becomes the default position, as if by magic. Suddenly, the natural world is up for debate.

This happened with homosexual marriage. It was first detached from its natural meaning to be a social construct, rather than an ancient custom. Instead of being defined by the biological necessity of reproduction, it was just an invention to suppress women and manage property rights to the favor of males. Once that transformation occurred, opponents of homosexual marriage were forced make the affirmative argument for something that had been the default for eons.

The truth is, few things in human society are purely the result of nature. Even things like hair color or eye color in Europeans have a cultural angle. Over time, females with striking hair and eyes found better mating prospects. This naturally led to customs in which women tried to show off these features. The environmental conditions made diverse hair and eye color possible, but custom made it desirable, thus striking hair and eye color were selected for over time. Nature and nurture.

This is the deceit of new words and phrases cooked up by partisans. The point is to assault the truth, strip it of its legitimacy. The partisan is at home on the battle ground of “who? whom?” so they naturally seek to shape the ground to fit their need. It traps the bourgeois objectivist into the either/or trap. Once they accept the false dichotomy, they accept the weaker hand, and the results are inevitable. The Left wins every battle by first destroying the weapons the opponent can use against them.

This is why there is no reasoning with a partisan. That lefty aunt thinks what she thinks because she sees the world in binary terms. She greedily adopts the new language because it reaffirms her world view. The partisan sees the truth in the same way the vampire sees a mirror. It’s not the reflection that terrifies the vampire. It is the lack of one, a reminder of a truth of their existence. Facts and clear language have the same effect on the partisan, which is why they hiss at them.

The crackdown by the oligarchs on dissidents has had the happy result of a proliferation of new ways to support your favorite creator. If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.

The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

218 thoughts on “The Weapon Of Language

    • I won’t presume to have all the answers, but maybe something that has been missed:

      I think we have severely neglected is to make the enemy fear us.
      As long as we argue with their premises, we validate them. Today’s Z post is on point here.
      What do they fear? Exposure. For being frauds.

      If every interaction with us was a gut punch of shame, they would learn fear. It can be done. Never argue their premise. Cut them off at the knees, personally:
      Them: “Global warming Globo Homo bla bla bla”.
      Simple answer: “You’re a fraud.”
      More direct: “Your beliefs don’t work and you know it.”
      More subtle: “You love hurting people.” This one will burn for a long time.
      More vicious: “How often do you think about killing yourself?” I’m prepared to hear that they did that night, if I think they want me dead.
      My favorite: “Oh look, a baby killer is moralizing with me!”

      All of these questions cut to the quick, because all of them are true.

      All Democrats have the same philosophy as the Columbine Killers. Humanity doesn’t deserve to live. (Do I really think they all do? No. But make them ALL defend the monstrous bullshit, and they will begin to fear. “Hey, YOU vote for it!”).

      Rationalistic, Nihilistic and desperate for meaning which they can never find because their morality is based on window dressing, not the meaning of an individual doing productive work in a family/society setting that encourages the same.

      BTW, I looked up Vetrani Sui Sunt Circuli and found a bunch of very smart posts by someone with the same screen name. I wanted to find the meaning of the words, but failed.

      • There is no sign they fear the truth, or fear us.

        The only fear we’ve seen from them is January 6, and that was micro aggression compared to what they dished out in 2020. Never mind any decisive aggression.

        The Truth shall set you free is probably the biggest lie in history, and yes I know who said it…

  1. “Facts and clear language have the same effect on the partisan, which is why they hiss at them.”

    “Reality! We hates it forever!” (apologies to Tolkien)

  2. I sometimes struggle with the limits of clarity that I am comfortable with, but here goes nonetheless. We are in a WAR presently, not a civil debate, not a shouting match, not even a fist fight. It’s a bloody fucking war that’s raging. And most of the country is still sleepwalking to the Starbucks for another soothing latte.

  3. It is interesting to compare the growth of Christianity in the West vs. Paganism with worship of black people today by the upper class woke.

    In the first part, Christianity such as it existed during Imperial Times was weak, thin, and largely wiped out save in some of the Celtic Fringe and Italy / Iberia. It took dedicated missionary work and the deciding factor was that Christianity could give a pagan king who converted lots and lots of … literate monks who would be clerks that COULD NOT EVER inherit his kingdom or make a claim to it. The blessing of the Pope and the ability to pose as the rightful successor to Roman Emperors was a cherry on the top but collecting taxes and making sure lords did not weasel out of payment year after year was the deciding feature. Kings like taxes and money to pay for men at arms and other stuff.

    Peasants went along with it as the new religion was syncretic, old gods and goddesses were made into Saints and life went on much as it did before.

    This religion — not only is there a massive LOSS of skilled people as “Operators” but all their support people. The best door-kicker just sits there if the helicopter can’t fly due to lack of maintenance, or the all gay crew crashed it last week. But there is loss of power and prestige for all the “mini lords” who used to be big shots.

    Hollywood — out are all the White male Jewish (and non Jewish) actors, writers, producers, directors etc. save for a few stars, and to a lesser extent actresses. Its all black black black black blackity black black. Mel Gibson has had more than a few of his former friends inquire as to how he finances his direct to video movies with Vince Vaughan. Of course the new black stars supplanting the older White ones are happy, but now you have lots of people with lean and hungry looks. Disney is down from its projections, apparently to keep subscriber numbers up they’ve had to cut their prices to $7 a month from $14. Black black black black only sells to 13% of the population. And streaming only works with mass — consumers show no willingness to pay say $90 a month for black black black stuff at the reduced take up level.

    • Hollywood has all but killed itself. Over the past decade, they’ve chased out all the White male writing & directing talent and replaced it with “diversity” (blacks). The result has been an inability to create anything new or interesting because White men are, by a HUGE margin, the most creative American demographic (87% of best selling novelists, most award-winning directors and screenplay writers, etc). Thus, the endless focus on remakes and reboots because that’s the low-hanging fruit that doesn’t require any real talent or innovation — both lacking in the diversity hires. Writing, which is hard and rarely pursued by diversity (blacks), has been replaced with cheap tricks and desperate financial gambles.

      This means we are in for at least a generation of terrible products because people never really learn. Rather, things only change through generational turnover. Thus, the old saying that science advances one funeral at a time.

      The upcoming JJ Abrams Superman movie is being written by a black racist no-talent who said 9/11 responders got what they deserved; the guy also wrote the Captain America comic book as a racial revenge fantasy where he took the White character and had him beat up racist Whites, many of whom were comically dressed up in Confederate Flag attire. The movie will retcon Superman as being black. Rumor has it they want the movie to be a period piece in the 1960s, so you can guess where that is going.

      Countless other race-swaps with blacks have all but killed iconic characters in the minds of the majority White American audience. Once those properties are tainted by anti-White racism, they are dead. They aren’t coming back. It’s not like making a bad movie where there is always a chance at later redemption. Associating your movie franchise with something toxic like racism creates an emotional aversion in the audience that isn’t likely to go away — ever. Like Pavlov’s dogs, whenever I see Superman, I’ll think of that time a black racist inserted his own demographic into the role, purposely removing mine due to racial animus.

      Besides, once you go down that route you aren’t allowed to go back, so I’m betting you won’t see the canonical White Superman again. Just like Hollywood emboldened racist blacks to think they deserved all the awards, now blacks will think they deserve all the roles (and saying otherwise is rayciss). Same with Star Wars, Star Trek, The Terminator, and countless others. There’s no coming back from that.

      That’s the real reason why these award shows have tanked: there’s nothing in them for Whites. The Grammys? Hosted by a racist foreign black guy, featuring music I’ve never heard of. Result: lowest ever ratings. The Academy Awards? Hosted by a racist black, featuring movies I’ve never heard of. Result: lowest ever ratings. Etc. Etc. Etc.

      Meanwhile, the overseas element is creeping in on American cultural territory: foreign Asians have now won multiple Oscars, including Best Picture; Japanese manga has all but destroyed the SJW American comic book industry; Japanese anime is all the rage, and a Japanese animated production has just set domestic box office records in that country and done respectably in the United States; Polish video game company CDPR has done well despite missteps (brought about by hiring Americans) and Japanese video game companies like Capcom and Nintendo have had recent — surprise — comebacks at the same time woke idiocy is spreading in the West (coincidence?).

      I can’t post too many links without being flagged as spam, but if you want to understand why Americans are losing to foreigners, image search the following terms:

      “The Witcher 3 cast” (Polish CDPR video game)

      “Dragon Ball Z cast” (Japanese Anime)

      “Resident Evil 8 cast” / “Resident Evil 4 cast” (Japanese video games)

      “Super Mario Odyssey Cast” (Nintendo, Japanese game company)

      *This is only a tiny list of examples.


      “Kevin Smith He-Man Tela” (American animation)

      “Star Trek Discovery cast season 3”

      “Mortal Kombat 2021 Johnny Cage removed” (they removed the White male character because he was White, meaning there are no White males who appear in the movie who aren’t also villains).

      “Charlies Angels 2019” (American film, box office poison)

      … or consult the constant barrage of Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix “Black Stories” recommendations. There are countless comparative examples I could give. In short, foreign products have sexy women and heroic men; they lack diversity (black obsession). Thus, they sell. American products have womxn who look like men (literally), and their black lesbian girlfriends, taking over for hapless men; they also lack diversity in that Whites aren’t allowed lead roles. Thus, they increasingly don’t sell.

      You’ll notice a profound lack of “blackety black” and “muh strong womxn” in foreign products that are now sweeping the West. That’s the secret sauce of why so many Western kids are rushing to foreign products over American ones: lack of odious diversity politics and plausibly White (& masculine / feminine) characters they can identify with.

      Despite misconceptions to the contrary, people identify most with characters that are of their own background. Whites watch other Whites doing things Whites like to do — science fiction, political dramas, etc. Blacks watch blacks doing things blacks want to do — playing in the NBA, roughing it in the hood, etc. Straight men like watching other straight men get the girl and save the day. It’s all about the fantasy that you are that character or are friends with that character. Whites, Asians, and Hispanics never imagine themselves as black (or gay) and rarely associate with them, so stuffing your franchise with too many of them turns off the majority audience — especially if you add uncomfortable black racial lecturing to the mix. So, Hollywood fails at forced diversity.

      When that rule of thumb isn’t true, there is always some other angle that allows a general audience to identify with the characters. Thus, movie successes like Die Hard and Predator, both of which are super masculine action movies with lots of diversity and cross-cultural appeal (because every straight male can imagine being associated with a heroic man who beats up bad guys with guns and explosions and gets the girl in the end).

      … but since Hollywood can’t appeal to those masculine and feminine demographics anymore due to woke Twitter, they cannot create anything that’s diverse and successful unless it already has name recognition, a huge budget, and massive marketing — which reduces return on investment and presents a huge financial risk.

      Black obsession shows up in the kinds of things Hollywood makes these days. Blacks are 13% of the population but less than about 9% of the American audience (and much less globally) for most science fiction productions like Star Trek. So, black-obsessed Hollywood has turned science fiction Star Trek into science fantasy featuring diverse female leads, driving away the original White male audience in the process; it’s a desperate attempt to recreate a product with a new, more politically desirable, audience. They’ve supplemented their efforts with massive production budgets and advertising, but it hasn’t worked. The writing is awful and no one watches it. They’ve changed the ethos from diplomacy to low-brow action. Diversity doesn’t imagine itself flying around in tin cans making peace with aliens, encountering ethical dilemmas, and exploring the universe with their humanist philosophy. That’s a White guy thing.

      Gender-obsessed Hollywood also refuses to make masculine action movies anymore, so the Predator went from a testosterone-fueled action, horror romp to a feminist empowerment saga in the newest Disney movie (led by a diverse female, of course). Same for romantic comedies — “chick flick” denounced by the Netflix Twitter account because apparently the people now running Hollywood are all lesbian POCs who can’t relate to the majority heterosexual female audience.

      In short, the West has replaced meritocracy with odious diversity quotas. The result has been inferior products at best, and disdain by the audience at worst. They’ve replaced their long-term prospects with short term expedience. They’ve replaced an easily serviced homogeneous audience with a diverse one where it is impossible to please everyone at the same time. Trying to do so has killed the experience, and there is no coming back from the effort. China has not yet had her day in the cultural sun, but I suspect that day is coming soon. Japan and other countries which have homogeneous audiences and a creative class based on merit and delivering things to normies, not Twitter, will continue to do well, aided by the American decline.

      • Amazingly enough (or maybe not so), most of the hollywood/musical asswhites seemingly lap up and love their dispossession.

      • Man that was a long comment Hollywood Insider. The only guy with that level of autistic energy is Whiskey. I think you are one and the same.

    • Christianity gives people a community, a wife, a sex life, a family, and a concrete (and simple) path to salvation. Obviously it’s not always perfect while carried out by man. You can love it or hate it but it’s been an integral part of our people’s identity for almost 1000 years. It can’t be all wrong.

      The woke religion causes depression, self hatred, atomization, low fertility and inceldom (unless you’re a chad). Not only are you evil, there is no path to salvation except suicide or further efforts to debase your own people. It is a slightly better deal for POC, but as I mentioned below it is hurting their psyche too.

      I kind of believe that there will be a revival of Christianity (or conversion to Islam), if either religion has some sects holding out against Globohomo for long enough. Either that everyone is just going to kill themselves or be killed. Wokeness is a satanic death cult.

      • There’s a lot to be said for Christianity: a person attempting to follow it’s precepts— to love his neighbor as he does himself, to put the needs of others ahead of his own, to treat people he encounters with charity, forbearance, and good will, to be honest, generous, forgiving and kind— will probably do well in life, and be well-liked by his fellows.

        And to believe that the Universe is ruled over by an all-powerful, perfectly-loving, perfectly-merciful God who knows you intimately and has your best interests at heart— that’s gotta be a source of comfort and hope.

        No doubt that’s why it continues to spread.

        But to the question of ‘But is it true?’ I came to the conclusion that no, it isn’t. The world I live in is not the world I read about in the Bible. And look as I might, I’ve seen no evidence that ‘the God of the Bible’ actually exists.

        I came to the conclusion that the ‘religious experiences’ I had in my years of trying to be a Christian were self-induced.

        And I’m simply unable to believe something that I find unbelievable; even if doing so would make my life better.

        • So go to church anyway.

          The theology is just one reason. Being among people whose values and traditions you share is another. Koinania, community, fulfilling the need for belonging and meaning.

          The God part? Be honest. No one really knows. So participate anyway. Good for you. Good for your family. Who knows, God may be watching you! I always feel better after having gone to church.

        • Bill,
          I followed a similar path. I never lost my respect for Christianity, but I stopped believing. Someone else responded to you that church was still the best place to find community (if it isn’t woke) and that is likely true, though I’ve haven’t been back.

          I got something amazingly useful out of a lecture series on Genesis a couple of years ago. It was about 35 hours long, so I won’t try very hard to summarize much. One attempt I’ll make is that all myths have as their primary and possibly sole purpose to articulate in story form the function of the psyche, so that people don’t have to wander like useless woke zombies through their lives. The same person spends hours on the subject of truth, and not in the False Dichotomy sense Z talked about here. His definition is that for something to be true it has to work today, tomorrow, next year. It has to work for you, your family and your city. It has to always work. Rationalist truth, by contrast, only has to work in the word games Z was talking about.

          The one lecture on Cain alone had me on my heels for almost 2 years. I never knew what it meant before that!

          So, those interested might consider looking up Peterson’s lecture series, not to go back to Christian belief, but to help make the rich mythology a useful tool.

          There, I waited to the end to put Peterson’s name in, ‘cos Z thinks he’s a grifter. 🙂

          • He has hundreds of hours of interesting insight into religions, evolutionary psychology, philosophy and neuroscience on youtube for free. He defended the systemic assault on boys in his books and debates communists. If he’s not truly christian or right wing enough, he’s close enough for a nice break from the same old black pills.

      • B125, all true brother. I’d believe if I could and I wish you well.

        Ed Dutton says that he wants to be an agnostic living among Christians. I sympathize. You guys are definitely on to something, or at least you were. Respect.

    • “Hollywood — out are all the White male Jewish (and non Jewish) actors, writers, producers, directors etc. save for a few stars, and to a lesser extent actresses.”

      Yeah, no. Not even.

      • Roman Polanski directed his last movie in 2019. At least one of the jewish directors/rapists is finding some work.

  4. The point seems to be that customs and institutions evolved over time in some sort of natural, organic way. But could this, too, be a false dichotomy if customs and institutions are the socialized expressions of the will of the dominant?

    Gender, as progressives use the term, isn’t merely a woke synonym for sex. The former term refers to roles, the latter to biology and, I’ll add, spirituality. “Social justice” is a true neologism as is “climate change” while “my pronouns are…” is pure pretension. Still, can you effectively refute the assertion that all evaluative language is, by nature, partisan? Or is this assertion itself mere casuistry? If so, what’s the counter proposition?

    • It’s not partisan until someone makes it so, and it’s usually with adjectives which by their nature may be subjective

      Calling a tree a tree is not partisan and does not require a dominant player. It just is. Saying the tree is green carries some subjectivity with it because people may interpret or see greens differently, but a tree is still a tree. Yes, a scientist may see a tree and call it by a deeper more specific name, but it’s still a tree. Etc etc

      Seems that the left mostly deals with adjectives. And/or it twists the meaning of nouns, such as gender. But that’s THEIR problem, not one of language, it’s THEIR shortcomings. If they cannot differentiate between a male and female, the problem is with them, and why we indulge their shortcomings and entertain their nonsense is just more of the same of our culture always trying to appease the less intelligent and gifted by letting them get away with their stupidity. The problem is with democracy in this case. Not so much language. Language here is just the expression of a mediocre mind operating in a democratic world where they are allowed to get away with being stupid because, as Z says, they need those votes to get to 50 +1. And stupid people get to vote.

      I doubt we would be in this pickle if we only allowed intelligent white men to vote.

      • You touched on democracy. I think democracy is itself the underlying religion of all these things. “The left” is the essence, or zeitgeist of democracy itself, which is why the Democrats have been the dominant party since, you could say, 10 years after the 17th Amendment was ratified, making this a nearly pure democracy with the patina of a Republic. And also, look at how quickly this new religion, “democracy” supplanted and even co-opted the ancient religion Christianity. After all the saints, all the Martyrs, all the intellectual firepower embedded and constructed over 2000 years, within two generations it was all swept away. It was the weaker horse. And it deserves to be ridiculed and reminded that it LOST the war of ideas. Only the immutable laws of nature themselves will put all of this back together, with, or without Christianity. Generally the laws of nature work with much bloodletting.

        • Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings” comes to mind. A century old, it reads like it was written for today’s woke culture.

      • There’s probably something akin to a Laffer Curve when it comes to the franchise. If you have a nation of many millions but the decisions are made by a very few at the very top, it’s all too easy for just a handful of those people to go off the deep end and drag the entire country with them. On the other hand, the near universal suffrage that we currently endure allows for hysterias to infect the voting public, like so many Salems writ large.

        If voting rights are limited in such a way that arrivals at the polls are mostly sober, reasonably intelligent men then you’re fairly well insulated from the cascading insanity exemplified by today’s negrophilia, sexual confusion, and anti-white pogroms. The United States was probably close to that sweet spot for the first few decades of its existence.

  5. That last post wasn’t meant to offend anybody, and my sincere apologies if it has.

    My only intention was to point out that what we’re talking about here— our topic, if you will— is:
    ‘What’s true, and what isn’t’.

    And however beneficial it may be in some ways to believe a falsehood, in the end I think we’re all better off with the truth.

  6. So much of what we’re talking about here comes down to a question of Reality: of what can be shown to true.

    Race-realism is preferable because it’s demonstrably true.

    Male dominance is preferable because it accords with the facts.

    The things Liberals believe in— egalitarianism among racial groups, the equality of men and women, the normalness of homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’, the possibility of achieving equity of outcomes, the purported ‘strengths’ of diversity— are undesirable for the sole reason that *they aren’t true*: they don’t accord with reality.

    They may be nice ideas, it may be that the world would be a nicer place if they were true— “isn’t it pretty to think so?”— but they don’t accord with demonstrable reality. It would be nice if everyone were equal; but the fact is, they aren’t.

    That’s the problem I have with Christianity: it doesn’t appear to be true. It may be a nice story, with a lot of good practical truths embedded in it; it may feel good to believe it, and to gather together with others who also believe it. It may make you a better person to believe it.

    But it doesn’t pass the Sagan test: that the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the confirmatory evidence needs to be in order to validate it. And in my experience, the evidence for the truth of the Christian narrative just isn’t there.

    Religions arose back in the time before we humans possessed a lot of facts about the world around us; and our pattern-seeking brains insisted on making up a plausible narrative to explain things. The social cohesion of the group was enhanced when everyone was believing the same thing about who we are, where we came from, how we ought to behave.

    But science has given us the answers to those questions. We no longer need Iron-age myths to guide us. We no longer need beliefs which feel good, but don’t accord with reality.

    Like anti-racist egalitarianism. Like religion.

    • “…science has given us the answers to those questions…”

      See comment on the “Humanist Manifesto” below. Note that Carl Sagan was “Humanist of the Year” in 1981, and a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). No dogmatic beliefs, no self-serving motives. Just pure “science”…

      • Yeah, I’m not saying Sagan was right about everything, I don’t think he was. There’s plenty he believed that I disagree with him on.

        But his insistence that the strength of the evidence has to be commensurate with the strength of the claim, makes a lot of sense to me.

        Someone making an extraordinary claim— that a person who was actually dead (not just seeming to be dead, but actually dead) miraculously came back to life after three days in the grave; which is what the Bible claims about Jesus— a claim which is by all known laws of science and nature physically impossible, which has never been seen or documented before or since— that sort of extraordinary claim requires strong proof to be taken seriously.

        Anyone making a similarly-extraordinary claim today would be asked for strong proof as to why we should believe it.

        ‘Because it says so in my holy book’ is not enough.

        ‘Why should we believe your holy book?’

        ‘Because it was written/inspired by God’

        ‘How do we know it was written/inspired by God?’

        ‘Because the holy book says so.’

        Seeing Sagan’s standard as a reasonable one doesn’t rest on his character or credibility; it just makes sense that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And IMO, the words of a ‘holy book’ don’t suffice.

        • This is exactly how Covidism should be questioned by alleged sophisticated moderns.

          It’s not happening.

        • There is a lot of very well reasoned Christian apologetics that people neglect to look at before declaring Christianity unbelievable. John AT Robinson, a biblical scholar and very liberal Anglican bishop (he supported women clergy) wrote a book arguing that the entire New Testament was probably written before 70 AD, i.e within 40 years of the events discussed, in most cases by the traditionally attributed authors going by first or second hand witness testimony. If this true it is very difficult to believe that the biblical authors were operating under some form of collective mass hallucination. There is universal agreement among even secular scholars that several of the Pauline Epistles date to the 50s.

    • Reality is always going to be an iffy concept simply because people interpret the world around them through their own personal prism.

      For anyone who likes literature, you can really see this with great clarity when you read a great writer versus a journalist or a hack. A journalist can provide all the essential details, “It was 10 AM on a Sunday morning, cold and misty, and the people were gathered on Broad Street to express their outrage over a cop hurting an unarmed black man” but the image or impression doesn’t stick because they don’t have the talent to express things through a personal or the character’s prism. Literature requires that these details be expressed through an attitude of the character which colors it and gives it life.

      Moral of the story, you have to express things through the mind of someone if ideas or details are going to stick. There has to be an attitude or a tone or something that makes them feel human rather than just an inventory of facts and details. So what that tells me is that, if one wants to use language to express “reality,” they have to do so with a voice that conjures up an attitude or tone. And that’s the hard part. Merely stating facts and so forth doesn’t express reality because realty is always perceived through someone’s prism.

      • Yes: there’s a sense in which each person’s ‘reality’ is unique and personal.

        But there’s another way of defining and understanding ‘reality’ that’s not the least bit subjective:

        When scientists can launch a spacecraft from the Earth, slingshot it around the Moon, send it 5 billion miles to Pluto, and send back videos— I’d say that shows they have a pretty good grasp of physical reality.

    • Incisive comments. If I may add one more: despite many centuries of the progress of science, it’s depressing for us secularists to recall what a large fraction of the CURRENT population still believes in religions. Or do they? Trying to be fair, a large portion of “believers” are probably otherwise rational people just going along with a tradition, for conformity’s sake. Or put another way, we can all agree that Christianity exists. Rightly applied, it can be, and often has been, a viable moral system.

      • That’s true: when you see people picking and choosing from “God’s holy word”— heeding what they feel like heeding, and ignoring the parts they don’t like— you’ve got to conclude that they don’t really believe it’s “from God”.

    • You may not believe in god or heaven. But you absolutely should believe in religion. Because something deep in human nature craves it. And when society loses its organizing religion, as ours has, it does not believe in rationalism or science but all manor of primitive superstitious crap.

      Beyond that, there are a number of reasons and ways that organized religion, specifically Christianity provide a long term competitive advantage to the cultures that believe in them and incorporate those beliefs into cultural norms.

      No offense to you Bill, but a lot of contemporary atheists are obsessed with proving how smart they are to the detriment of a healthy community. It’s a form of narcissism. Which the enemy will happily use against us.

  7. Re: The Taki piece, can we all agree that the official state religion of America In Name Only should be called “Dinduism”? It’s got a caste system and everything — we’re the Dalits.

    • The official state religion is Humanism / Socialism, as promoted by John Dewey, the Rockefellers, and the “secular” education system since the 1920s. Modern sects including “Dinduism”, “Feminism”, “Environmentalism”, etc. are offshoots of the mother church:

      “Today man’s larger understanding…requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion… To establish such a religion is a major necessity…

      Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. [We] believe that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process… [We] are firmly convinced that… A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established…” — Humanist Manifesto (1933)

      • Beliefs are all over the map.

        Beliefs supported by facts, not so much.

        Does the Humanist Manifesto give reasons for why they believe that “the Universe is self-existing and not created”?

        Scientists who believe that the Universe as we know it originated in the Big Bang can give evidence as to why they believe that to be true.

        Beliefs unsupported by evidence are no different from superstitions.

        In many cases, the ‘reasons’ people give for holding them come down to ‘It seems true’ or ‘It feels good to believe it’.

        > For so many questions, the only honest answer is agnosticism:
        ‘I don’t know. There isn’t enough data to support a conclusion.’

        • The existence of the monotheistic/Abrahamic God can be known a priori without “evidence” in the form of miracles or some other directly observable novel phenomena, which is probably what you mean by evidence. The existence of God is a philosophical proposition. This is actually an official teaching of the Catholic Church. The converse view, that the existence of God can only be known via Divine Revelation (miracles), is considered a heresy. All that Divine Revelation tells you is whether you should be a Christian monotheist, Muslim monotheist, Jewish monotheist, or whatever the Romans were trying to get at with the (monotheist) Sol Invictus cult.

          Same goes for most of the moral rules the Abrahamic religion have that people complain about having to follow – they are based on natural law derived from reason, not the Bible (though they’re usually mentioned in the Bible somewhere).

    • There is a commenter on Unz who regularly posts the Ten Commandments of that church.

      I’ll have to see if I can find them.

  8. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Weapon of Language

  9. I have a serious question. How much longer can a society go when its population can look at itself naked in a mirror and still be confused as to their gender? Do you have a prick or not?! Even at the height of decadent Rome, with all its pederast Caesars, etc., I doubt they were confused by this. And if so, doesn’t that mean that Christianity, after 2000 years, ultimately failed? If the religion of your civilization is so weak that it can no longer uphold the community standards of even genital sets, will it not be marked out of history along with its adherents, or even former adherents? As I follow the far right, I’ve noticed more than ever in the last few years a lashing out at Christianity. Is this not justified given the circumstances in which we find ourselves? Humanity is naturally repelled by things that are dead and used up. It’s a law of nature.

    • Looking at what has happened in the world, it seems that there are elements of Christianity that have sown the seeds which are undoing the Western world.

      Take the tale of the Good Samaritan, which has been perverted into something that aligns with socialism.

      Heck, the core story of Jesus himself is an issue because from that tale too many have internalized the idea they should sit around waiting for someone to save them rather than taking action.

      What happened to, “the Lord helps those who help themselves?”

      • What happened to, “the Lord helps those who help themselves?”

        It went the way of the dodo and great auk. Didn’t you get the memo? Today’s world reviles self sufficiency as a racist, eurocentric male-originated social construct. The result from one point of view is a population of voters willing to vote for whichever pol offers the most givs-me-dats. The result from a contrasting point of view a population of baby birds, perpetually with their mouths open demanding to be fed.

      • Wokism is a perverted Christian heresy. Marxism was too and wokism is a post economic derivative of Marxism.

    • “As I follow the far right, I’ve noticed more than ever in the last few years a lashing out at Christianity. Is this not justified given the circumstances in which we find ourselves? Humanity is naturally repelled by things that are dead and used up. It’s a law of nature.”

      To me it’s obvious christianity is at its end(in the west at least), unless Christ performs a deus ex machina where he appears out of nowhere to save the west, then christianity is ova’. Russia(& some of its satellites) is the only region where christianity is being protected, the rest of the world is making a mockery out of it, including the vatican.

      Anyone who knows anything about the religions of antiquity should be aware of the fact that the Jupiter(Zeus/Marduk/Indra) religions lasted around 2000 years(current age of christianity).

      • Christianity has had huge growth in the third world.

        As for the west, it will become increasingly difficult for the non-wealthy to start families as living standards fall. Other than the affluent, the only people breeding will be people willing to go out of their way to do so–this will generally mean the religious.

        Liberalism will loose its appeal as a religion replacement as soon as the US loses global dominance, which will happen by mid-century, and the Chinese have shown no interest in spreading Marxism as a religion replacement.

        The future of world religion will be Christianity (mostly Catholicism and Pentecostalism) plus weird post-Christian restorationist offshoots like Mormonism or the Taiping movement from China in the 1800s. These heretical sects will, like Mormonism, maintain the Christian evangelizing style even if they alter the substance of the religion. Muslims actually suck at winning converts and Muslim areas might start to get converted by the Pentecostals similar to what happened to Catholics in South America.

    • Well, in fairness, didn’t the Christians always say that the religion would ultimately fail? St. John didn’t see blood up to the horses’ bridles because Jesus was in a good mood.

    • I’m not sure Christianity failed. We’re right back in the Garden of Eden and the Serpent is ahead by three touchdowns. But there’s a lot of time left on the clock.

      The Serpent has convinced these knuckleheads that they can change God’s decision to make them men or women and that a bite of the modern “philosophy” Apple has given them some special Knowledge about the nature of humanity not found in the Bible or preached by Jesus. It’s bitter fruit.

      • Idk, I look around and see white druggies, childless and depressed white women, wine moms, random foreigners everywhere, weak beta white males. A lost, sad, and confused people and nation.

        At church, we have many white families, obedient women, people with peace and purpose. I don’t believe we are wrong, even if 95% of society is against Bible believing Christians. I’m not saying modern Christianity is perfect at all, but if you go, you will see a marked difference. You will see what and why made whites “great” in the first place.

    • JR Wirth, you shouldn’t blame Christianity for our current bad circumstances. The religion has been around for 2000 years and served humanity well for most of this time. Now that things are bad and people are looking to assign blame, I think majority of blame should fall elsewhere.

      I blame enlightenment philosophy that elevated interest of individual over group, proposed the perfectibility of man and eroded authority of traditional institutions (monarchy, aristocracy, church). Individual over group aspect of enlightenment philosophy is particularly harmful as it prevents in group protection against harmful outsider groups and interests (e.g., libertarians, peoples with “13 do 50” criminality, rootless cosmopolitans and their financial predations, LGBT and their sexual predations, etc). Because of enlightenment emphasis on individual, we are now susceptible to NAXALT fallacies — one “good” individual from outsider group can redeem entire population. And from a moral perspective of enlightenment, we are handicapped in making arguments advocating for our in group interest. Will current regime constructed on enlightenment framework allow for identification of group interest, let alone protection of it? I think not. And this has nothing to do with Christianity.

      As the enlightenment is a broad ideological movement, but if I had to pick one particular bad actor that kicked it off, it would be Rousseau. I think he was a mentally ill and was creative in inventing a philosophical movement that justified his actions (e.g., aberrant sexual behavior, abandonment of children). Interesting aspect about Rousseau is that he was a deviant that invented an entire moral framework to justify his deviancy! He created the means that justified his ends. His philosophy made it mark on the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, so now we all have to live by the rules he helped create. Interesting to consider how much of political system will need to be jettisoned if we want to address the root problem we face.

      Back to Christianity. For sure there are problems (gay priests, liberal drift in churches) but in the best case these churches provide a refuge for people that are being vilified by current political system. Teach kids and adults timeless morals. Offer community and fellowship to people that are having their natural communities disrupted.

      • I absolutely blame Christianity. The religion of the realm (whatever it is) is supposed to guard a society against the violations of the laws of nature. In this respect, Christianity has utterly failed. And if we’re depending on some latin mass millennials to re-boot it that’s not going to happen.

    • Now that the Israeli’s control the US government, they don’t need to stoke the Christian ideology as a way of getting Americans to support them anymore. For the most part the strategy of differentiating the US Empire from, say, the Soviet Empire by means of Evangelical Christianity failed. But it was only ever a tool for developing fanatical adherents who would die in our Military for the sake of our overlords. They did the same exact thing with Islam, ISIS and other terrorist groups. In short, it’s all just another example of the Deep State brainwashing complex.

      But they have the problem that the only people responding to the Christian message now are 1) White Identitarians and 2) central americans who want to be sponsored as refugees by a church here. If all we are looking for is fanatical adherents to a religion who will sacrifice themselves for the Empire, Islam would be a better choice because it has more influence in the non-white world anyway.

      Yes, Christianity is a dying religion.

    • Survey the people with all these cockamamie ideas about gender fluidity and race as social construct and all the rest, and report back on % of them who go to church on the regular. Over under at 0.75%.

      • I’m talking about the religion of the land, Christianity, having any kind of impact on society in 2021. It currently doesn’t.

    • ” If the religion of your civilization is so weak that it can no longer uphold the community standards of even genital sets, will it not be marked out of history along with its adherents, or even former adherents?”

      But is that the point of Christianity? If Christ, the founder, is to be taken at face value, then the point of Christianity is to reconcile man to God. Whether it upholds community standards would be, at best, a tertiary concern.

    • Christianity lost it’s martial aspect and with it, it’s moral backbone. It has for the most part degenerated into the feel good crap of Joel Osteen(who ripped off Tony robbins)

      I read Gab a lot and it’s full of gutless Christians who are waiting for God to fix things.

      This is is not the Christianity of Charles Martel, Pope Urban II, or the Poles at Vienna in 1683. Heck even into the early 70’s Christianity still had a back bone.

      As to why it’s moral, martial spine is gone. It is because it was infiltrated by Leftists, feminists, gays and even atheists like Spong.and who proceeded to water everything down to feel goodisms.

      Now the denominations are silent as freaks and abominations run rampant in our schools and are allowed free reign with our kids. 40 years ago this would not have been tolerated.

      • I totally agree, and it was allowed to happen. It was allowed to be co-opted, and continues to this day to be coopted and in decline. Even evangelicalism is in decline. So my assertion is that Christianity may have been a robust system in ancient times, but, like a dodo bird, has no natural defenses against the onslaught of the liberal democratic era. And any future dictator post liberalism will likely be atheistic in nature. And may even violently oppose Christianity itself.

      • Historically, Christianity has been weaker longer than its been strong (in your terms). At its inception it was a religion for slaves and women. And remained so for centuries. After it became the dominant religion in the Mediterranean it certainly played a role in the decline of the Roman Empire. In the sixth century it failed completely in preventing the Arabs from conquering half of Christendom in short order.

        It also didn’t prevent pagan barbarians from over running France and Britain and the Balkans.

        The strong form you refer to was mostly poorly assimilated norsemen and their descendants who came to dominate vast disparate areas throughout Europe.

  10. Orwell wasn’t sure which came first — is our language bad because we’re stupid and foolish, or are we so stupid and foolish because our language is bad? — but I think the 75 years between “Politics and the English Language” and the Current Year have provided the answer: It’s the former. If language were prior, than the stuff Z and Orwell describe would’ve ended in the 1970s, with the abortion “debate.”

    The Left did their usual thing, framing the pro-abortion position as “pro-choice.” Who could possibly be against “choice”? So long as you don’t name the barbaric procedure — thus forcing your listeners to confront a mental image of it — you can frame it as liberation. Free to choose!!! How quintessentially American. But the anti-abortion people came up with what should have been an equally effective piece of rhetoric: “pro-life.” Who, indeed, could be against life?

    Alas, it didn’t work, and we know why: While the “life” was merely potential, the “choice” was all about me me me me ME. And so it went with all Leftist dogma: “Saving the Earth” is supposed to be about potential future people if anything is (all those aborted fetuses be damned), but the Left cleverly made it all about me me ME in the here-and-now. Their sloppy rhetoric reflects this — it’s all about what YOU (not I) should do to save the Earth. (Indeed, it’s about what I should be able to force you to do). And so it goes…

    • So you think women should be forced to bring children into the world that they do not want? We have statistics on how those types of situations turn out. Wasn’t it Freakonomics that informed us that the crime wave decreasing in the ’90s was due to Roe v Wade (unwanted children not being born leads to fewer violent criminals).
      Per Duns Scotus, life is ALWAYS a potential, never a necessity. Will is always paramount. Hunter-gatherer societies (and all ancient societies) accepted infanticide. I agree it is not always pleasant (100 million little girls “disappeared” under the one-child rule in China).
      I was happy to rescue one of them. How about you?

    • It’s mostly forgotten today, but a key element of the Roe v Wade legal battle was that Roe had been raped by a black man – and who could force such a horror on her. It was. A provable lie as she had to forego the abortion for the legal case to move forward and it wasn’t a mulatto – she subsequently admitted that it was a long term boyfriend that impregnated her.

  11. There are countless examples of language manipulation in our modern age “ consumer” instead of citizen…” gay” once meant a happy person now it’s associated with homosexuality…
    “ inclusive” now means anti white…on and on it goes these rulers of ours in the modern age hate us.

    • “Anti-fascists” being violent terrorists. If you’re against antifa, then you must be pro fascist.

    • See Confucius and the Rectification of Names. A very long time ago. You cannot have a sound polity with a corrupted language.

  12. We must again practice with the Weapon of Language as an offensive weapon. It’s going to hurt. To bad.

    Notice in pastor Doug Wilson’s discussion here
    that “words” addressing the woman of a church identify with a “church with a spine”.

    When white men with spines were the majority, they (we) failed to realize that discounting the power of words (ideas expressed) from the mouths of soft enemies over time would put us on the road to Babylon.

  13. We lost extremely effective words that ar eno longer permitted in polite society. Imagine how much easier life would be to cut through the nonsense if you could still say:


    There’s a reason these words were effectively outlawed, because they cut too deep into the primal realities of human societies.

    • Well, as an actual bastard born pale, blonde-haired and blue-eyed into an ethnic, dark-skinned family from the mountainous Caucuses, I just laugh when I hear the word. Tabulations have our number at about 15% of the white population. I suffer no shame for an act beyond my control and I am damned glad to be here.

        • If I had their funding, after the Apache career finale I would be at Cambridge working very small-level physics experiments for the rest of my life with winter break at CERN or Fermi. I would not be losing large chunks of my life to federal trials or haggling over patent rights. Harry was too stupid or vindictive to appreciate what he formerly enjoyed in support.

  14. “Instead of being defined by the biological necessity of reproduction, it was just an invention to suppress women and manage property rights to the favor of males.”

    If only………..I don’t think any man who has gone to divorce court lately would see it this way. The modern “social construct” of matrimony is a very different beast from marriage of yore. That said, Zman’s valuable point that the Progs’ game is to gut or pervert ancient institutions is essential in understanding their MO.

    But thermodynamics are not a “social construct”. Weight lifted, work done, crops harvested, problems solved, machines fixed……….the fog of neologism evaporates and the truth emerges eventually.

    • Modern marriage is a man paying child support to see his children and his wife pinky-swearing not to divorce or lie about him, even though there’s literally no legal penalty for doing so..

      Right to sex? What are you, a rapist?
      Permanent marriage? What are you, a serial abuser?
      Wife stay at home? What are you, a control freak?
      Expectation that she follows your leadership? She’s a strong, empowered womyn. How dare you.

      Also, better get cracking that housing addition, because you want her to be happy and be a good husband. Don’t want her to be unhappy, do you?

      • Recently I saw (probably on a right wing web site, to be fair; that’s where I get most of my “news”) that the traditional word “Mother” is out; now it should be “birthing person.” While I doubt that medical science has quite gotten to the point where a transexual male (still with his XY chromosomes) can get pregnant, I would not put that past technology… 🙁

      • Guys. If a man’s dog misbehaves, it’s not really the dog’s fault. You see where I’m going here?

  15. The intentional disinformation campaign being waged against binary sex is a symptom of a much, much bigger problem. It’s not simply about the deranged conduct of a small fraction of society leading everyone else off a cliff of irrationality, but at its essence is a social cancer that will eventually kill off our ancestral robustness and lead us into extinction if we just sit back and do nothing to remedy the disease. And by remedy, I mean excise the cancer cells.

    A woman diagnosed with breast cancer has a 90+% chance of remission if caught early when the first lump appears. Conversely, when Rush Limbaugh finally acted upon his lung cancer symptoms, he was at Stage 4 and had six months to left to live. Dare we wait until we get to Stage 4? And can you really talk or vote your way into remission?

    • And if the last Presidential election really was stolen: does voting even matter anymore?

      Or is seeking change ‘within the system’ no longer possible?

      • The entire raison d’être for this site is that seeking change ‘within the system’ is no longer possible.

        • Reveal the method, expose the players, tear down the stage. Offer a better model for society. This seems like the only practical defense against the fascist CFR/WEF/UN “Great Reset” agenda.

          • Neutralize the opposition permanently. Job number one. Unless we do that they will simply come back and infiltrate whatever we build.

            There is compromise with these people, they are evil and destructive. Otherwise known as “goodwhites”

      • To be fair, voting didn’t really matter way before the Resident Biden debacle. As is a constant theme of Z’s writing, whatever the system is doing, it is not going to be working for the interests of whites. Specifically whites-like-us.

        Every time I read about a new politician ‘making waves’, I do a bit a background reading (this isn’t even required these days) and imagine myself down the pub with xzhir. What would I talk about with xzhir? Would xzhir concede that the whole Covid business is an epic overreaction? Would xzhir concede that the government and a huge amount of corporations are anti-white? Would xzhir concede that in fact the gov and the corps are often fused in a most devious symbiosis? Hell, I haven’t even began to talk about LGBT debauchery yet much less race differences… the answer is the same: they would never agree with me. They are different. What they believe is a threat and to rise within the system appears to warrant holding these daft beliefs even harder.

        The system, as good as it may have been, is now ‘tarded up to the max. So the question is what to do? And the answer that I personally find favourable and realistic is the creation of local community. First, by building a family and educating them yourself. Second by identifying other like minded families, discussing areas that you can all move to (over here, we’ve not given up on the idea of buying as much land as we can and sticking caravans on it; at least it’s a fenced of community). Thirdly, eyes and ears in the system, which annoyingly enough we do still depend on for quite a bit. An informal network/site that allows people from our side to find work if say, they’ve been put out of it. A set of useful guides for trades and skills that are needed and unlikely to see you made redundant. Fourthly, faith in God – I would put this first, but appreciate others here may not see it that way!

        Unfortunately, we all need to confront the horrific truth that things may very well get violent. No matter where we are. Every time you go into a city, things could get spicy, so don’t do daft stuff. Have an exit strategy. It sounds so over the top, but this is Clown/Carny World and that’s where we are.

        • Who would down vote this? If even a third of society were as measured and reasonable as OF is in this post, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. But, tragically, men like OF are so few and scattered that hope for a better future is enkindled by the mere prospect of what is essentially a DR mobile home park.
          When ordinary people with reasonable ideas are subjected to scorn, the rising tide of envy ensures that no good thing will escape being washed away. The movie Idiocracy was not an amusing fiction but a dire prophecy.

    • Sorry, Tom, but you’re assuming we’re not already at stage 4 – and LATE stage four at that. It’s like when my Mom died with cancer back in 04. By the time she was actually diagnosed she was already in late stage 4. She was diagnosed in May and I removed the nasal cannula from her nose at the hospice in early August. I suspect we are already past the point of no.return, no correction. We’are like those poor people in the twin towers above where the airliners impacted. We’re already dead, we’re simply still breathing. About all we – Whites – can do now is put our head between our knees.

      • Cheer up, Bill! It ain’t over till it’s over. Of the 3 main tribes (European, Asian, African), Europeans are already a minority.
        Bur civilization still dominates, and has (up till now) set the standards for others to copy.

        If we want to have a future, the irrational, self-destructive “woke” psychosis must be cured. Perhaps it is not yet terminal.

  16. Experience has taught me the same thing: that attempting to reason with what Z is calling a partisan is a waste of time.

    This is so because these people are emotionally-wedded to what they believe: they have an intense emotional investment in their beliefs being true.

    If one questions their beliefs, it’s not just a question of competing interpretations of the facts; it’s tantamount in their minds to attacking them. Their beliefs are indeed like a religion to them, and they hold to their beliefs with all the fervor of a committed believer. It’s not just ‘correct vs. incorrect’, it’s ‘morally-right vs. morally-wrong’, ‘good vs. evil’.

    And because for them it’s about emotions rather than facts, nothing one can say— no amount of facts one can point out— will ever change their minds.

    That’s the difference between rational scientific belief, and emotion-based belief: the scientist is not only not wedded to his beliefs, he’s actively looking for disconfirmatory evidence; and when he finds it, he welcomes it, and changes his beliefs accordingly. He not only doesn’t feel a sense of loss when this happens, he rejoices at this example of the scientific method moving him in the direction of an ever-greater apprehension of truth.

    By contrast, the emotional believer clings to his beliefs and defends them at all costs. He frantically resists the abandonment of his beliefs, since he sees relinquishing those beliefs as a moral capitulation to evil.

    > I do think there is a sense in which all beliefs are indeed ‘social constructs’; but not the sense Progressives are talking about.

    For example: every unique culture shares a unique understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman; which differs in subtle ways from the understandings of other cultures. What it meant to be a man in Cherokee society in 1776 differed from what it meant to be a man in 1776 colonial America, or in 1776 Japan.

    > But all of these variations-on-a-theme were grounded in biological reality; and that’s the crucial difference.

    People in those societies knew (without having to defend that belief) that men and women were inherently (biologically) different; and the socially-constructed roles their society assigned were based on an understanding of these differences. They were *both* socially constructed, *and* grounded in biological reality.

    By contrast, when today’s Progressives say that sex/gender or race is ‘a social construct’, they’re claiming that these constructs are completely arbitrary, ungrounded in any biological reality.

    Inevitably, science— especially genetics— is showing that all human traits arise from a genetic foundation; that racial and sexual differences are indeed both real and consequential.

    The first practical acknowledgement of this is happening in medicine: where acknowledging the differences among the races is leading to specialized treatments and better outcomes.

    So the science-denying Anti-racist Egalitarians are fighting a losing battle; as the tension mounts between what science is revealing, and what Egalitarians are emotionally-wedded to believing.

    But it’s not likely they’ll accept defeat gracefully. Could the anti-racist hysteria we’re seeing today be grounded in an unconscious understanding that reason and reality are in fact against them?

    • Even the “social-construct” meme fails on closer examination.

      The proper response to that assertion is “so what”? It may be a social construct, but it’s one of my culture and anyone attacking it needs to provide overwhelming evidence of why it should be changed. Cultural relativity is not a reason to embrace novelty for its own sake. If all cultures are morally equivalent then stating that mine is inferior in some way and needs to change is cultural imperialism

      • It’s G.K. Chesterton’s point about the fence: before we remove it, we’d better understand why it was put there in the first place.

        The ‘change for the sake of change’ mentality fails to acknowledge this fact about long-held customs: there’s a reason they persisted.

        But in today’s Progressive ‘reasoning’, the mere fact that a custom originated with Old White Men— those racist sexist xenophobic homophobic transphobic misogynistic slave-owning bigots— is enough to demand it be thrown out.

        • Yes, but why?

          For the sake of argument say that their line of attack is all true.

          So what? Why should any white person want to destroy a system that favors them to become equivalent to blacks under Jim Crow? What’s in it for them?

          There’s no answer to that point.

          I contend that the woke phenomenon is a perversion of Christian ethics that elevated the poor and powerless. But the thing is that doing so was a path to the Christian heaven. Jesus said that at judgement day he would say that people who helped the poor had helped him. And people that had ignored the poor had ignored him.

          But today’s woke don’t believe in heaven, or Jesus of judgement day. So why denigrate yourself for someone else’s benefit? Seriously, ask them – they sputter and have no answer, and it sows a seed of doubt that will grow in some.

          • Wokeness is a synthesis of PoMo and Cultural Marxism. It’s PoMo origins can be traced to Derrida and Foucault – both uber degenerates and sexual predators When Derrida came to the U.S. his teachings were quickly adapted by Yale and the other Ivies and it spread from there and poisoned the minds of countless mush brained college students who had no idea what sort of evil brew they were indulging.

            BTW the notion of the social construct comes from these scumbags.

            Right now we are in the incipient stages of a Maoist style revolution replete with Red Guards(antifa, BLM and Federal Law enforcement). Along with economic destruction of bad whites. Our military is already being purged of non-Marxist white officers.

          • We just aren’t included in the “our” and never were. Diversity very much is their strength. We are isolated, outnumbered, and old. They are young, united by a racial hatred for us, and numerous.

    • Not to toot someone else’s horn but Sailer had theorized that a little while ago, that this is the last great racial power grab before science puts an end to the scam. Now Sailer being Sailer, he’s perhaps a touch optimistic on both counts (that it’s the “last”, and that more factual information will make much of a difference), however there does seem to be an effort to “crank the volume up” on leftist screaming rather than be serious about much of anything.

  17. Chiming in on Z’s Taki Post, here’s a great paragraph from Loyola’s anti-racism department:

    “Ultimately, it is for People of Color to decide if one is actually behaving in anti-racist ways. When one finds that they are out of alignment, they need to do what is necessary and try to repair the situation. Being racist or anti-racist is not about who you are; it is about what you do.”

    Ironically, I’m all for this. I want POC to shove this stuff down the throats of Goodwhites and CivNats. I want them to grovel because it will wake up other Whites. I don’t want Whites to be able to avoid reality. I want them to know that they will grovel for the rest of their lives if they don’t stand up for their people.

    • Yep! The “racial reckoning” is not about achieving equality and a level playing field; it’s about getting back at Whitey, at getting revenge for the wrongs they see as having been done to them.

      As more and more White people realize this, some of them will find themselves on our side of the great divide.

      • I realize that ~30%-40% of Whites are utterly hopeless. Another ~40% are CivNat fence-sitters hoping to ride this out in peace. But there are probably a good 20% to 30% of Whites who really hate this shit.

        We have 200 million Whites in this country. Forty to sixty million is a lot of people. Hell, even if its only 10% of Whites, that’s 20 million people.

        They just need to know that there’s no escape from this. That groveling to POC will never end. That’s when people start to say, hey, what do I have to lose.

        • I’d say that most whites, everywhere, just go with the flow. Parrot back whatever will get them through the day with the minimum amount of pain. (This does not apply to Blacks, btw)

          So the true believers are probably in the 10-15% range. Hardcore opponents may well be a large percentage of the population. The difference is that the woke believers control the power centers of our country: the government, big business, media, academia. They are using of those institutions to inflict their religion on us. Which is somewhat effective because of the overwhelming majority’s passivity.

        • Bottom line, it’s a culture war, a war of ideas. If we’re going to prevail, it’ll be through convincing a majority of our fellow Whites of the truth of what’s happening. Convincing them to migrate to our side of the great divide.

          • The best way of doing so is gaining control of power centers and then using those to make our way the path of least resistance.

        • This is one reason I don’t really lose any sleep over the declining % of whites. Clearly being 90%, 80%, 70% white didn’t actually help us out because the demographic change never stopped. It’s about our side growing, having lots of kids, building communities.

          Normiecons have the standard 1.7 kids, religious whites have 2-2.5 kids. It’s really the liberals who are having 1 or fewer kids. The problem is somewhat self correcting, though they’re after your kids.

          Whites are the fastest growing demographic of Honduras (Mennonites) and Mormon / Mennonite communities are growing in mexico. In a corrupt dysfunctional non white country it’s much easier for white communities to flourish *as an actual people*.

          • It seems the Mennonite Church of the USA is really only representative of the liberal (pozzed!) wing of the Mennonites. There are Conservative and Old Order Mennonite groups that have no truck with them. Those are the ones that are visibly Mennonite — plain dress, etc.

            MCUSA seems like the same group of Satanists that have taken over the other mainstream Protestant denominations.

          • Back a few years ago, when I worked at a daytime drop in homeless shelter in northern VA, I knew two Black crack whores. One had had 13 kids, the other had had 11. ALL the kids had been taken away by the System.

            Now if every one of those kids goes on to have 11 or 13 kids of their own….

            That’s not likely to happen, but you get my drift: in today’s Welfare State societies, the least-capable among us are not only surviving, they’re thriving: reproducing much faster than the rest of us.

            The same thing is happening worldwide: look at the countries with the highest birth rates: all African shitholes.

      • A rarely-noted aspect of the oppressed minority (tradionally the Negro in the American version of this ongoing drama) is simply this. While they certainly had legitimate claims to having suffered various types of oppression in the past (sometimes very distant past), well intentioned Whites have rectified all, or nearly all, that can be fixed. At present, they have very little to legitimately complain about for the past few generations. What they’ll NEVER ADMIT, perhaps, is the subconscious realization that as a group, they can never equal the Whites. This is pure envy (in the “obsolete” definition: “ill will”). They know they can never have the good life of Whites. The best they can do is “pretend,” living among Whites when they can. They can steal the fruits and temporarily enjoy them. Or they can destroy what makes it possible. But they know that high achievement is impossible to them, and this explains part of their hatred for other races.

        • Even that “oppression” charge fails under close scrutiny:

          Today we know that Blacks commit crimes at a rate way disproportionate to their numbers: they comprise 1/8 of the population, yet routinely commit over half the crimes.

          So…. if this disproportion has existed from the beginning, since Emancipation— and there’s good reason to believe it has— then the “oppression” and “discrimination” and “prejudice” Blacks and liberals complain about, was merely a reasonable reaction to reality.

        • They just want the reparations check. They don’t want to be evaluated as being as good as whites. They generally completely reject anything white people do. But the idea that the only thing white people have going for them is money is practically universal. There are a lot of really stupid rich white people who can’t do math, inherited their money, and never really do anything productive. Black people can definitely do that job just as well and they know it. They just want the cash. And as we have seen over the last year, they are here to get it by any means necessary this time around. They know voting is stupid just as much as we do.

    • When confronted by some cretinous POC giving vent to a perceived “racist” failure on his or her part, I am convinced that most actually want to say, “STFU Ni***r!” But they won’t because they fear that Loyola will expel them and ensure their status as a pariah. Our first goal should be to encourage them to explore the deeper question, which is why they care what Loyola or the Wokerati think of them. A further goal ought to be offering something of equal or greater value to the illusory promise with which Loyola beguiles them. If we cannot achieve these objectives, those people are lost as surely as Gollum forever hungering fruitlessly for his precious.

  18. Language / micro aggressions are literally violence / racism now. That’s why Africans think it’s ok to murder somebody for using the dreaded “n word”.

    I have another example. An acquaintances wife went shopping in an area “where there aren’t many Asians”. She returned distraught and said she was facing racism at the store. I asked him what happened and he said that people were “looking at” her and the cashier was “rude” to her. To me it sounds like awkward eye contact that happens on a regular basis in a public area, plus a regular rude grocery store employee on minimum wage. Basically the racism never happened and was totally imagined. Even if the cashier was a covert racist, who cares.

    The scary thing is that she actually believes it. She was legitimately upset because of this “racism” she experienced. The left is successfully turning things into real hardcore racism. It also seems to be turning non-whites into ultra fragile children.

    • I should also add that it will be easy to weaponize all these victims of racism into the perfect anti white tools, even to the point of violence. After all she literally faced violence and racism just going to the store, so why wouldn’t whitey get it in return?

    • That’s the thing: crummy-ass customer service, cock-eyed looks from other people (including other races), being shoved in the street, being ignored, being mocked &c, happen all the time. To everybody. Used to be we accepted some aspect of the struggle, but in today’s world a certain selection of people see offence/bigotry/racism/other-ism everywhere. It really is crazy when you stop to think about it, this is no way to run a country. And these sorts of people now have positions of power, so can indulge there hysterics upon the rest of us.

      In my experience woke whites are of course the main issue, but oddly, woke non-whites (particularly those born in the UK) are even worse. Many Indians and blacks I have known, who actually came from those countries, were far more realistic about interactions between the races. I had more frank discussions about race with these people (higher caste hindoos seemed to love dumping on blacks and musselmen) than with most of my own race.

    • B125,

      Indeed! Convince a POC that racists are everywhere, and they’ll be ‘finding’ racism everywhere they look; even where it isn’t.

      And when they react with hostility, as if racism has occurred, then whatever racist assumptions their interlocutor may have, are confirmed and amplified.

      It’s the worst thing one can do to a young POC, to convince them that racism lurks behind every bush and every cash register; condemning them to a lifetime of paranoia and alienation.

      • All the better to advocate total separation of the races. “Since we white folks are all incorrigible racists, why the hell would you want to be around us? 😀

        • Why do they want to be around us is the eternal question. I am sure there are at least 3.5 billion people on the planet that would their life, family, and friends in their own country in a split second if given the opportunity to move to the most racist, oppressive nation that ever existed. I find that very odd.

        • What good is separating the races unless you can keep the whites you want and keep out those you don’t?
          Woke whites are the ones cramming diversity down the throats of normal people.

    • “…went shopping in an area ‘where there aren’t many Asians’. She returned distraught and said she was facing racism at the store.”

      She would have had no problems if she shopped in an area where there were many, many Asians – like Asia.

    • That makes me think of the Covington Catholic kids, where Nick Sandmann simply stood his ground smiling at the old Indian guy pounding the drum in his face, resulting in front-page international news.

      I don’t care if those Covington kids jumped up and down and made woo-woo-woo noises like Kramer in that Cigar Store Indian episode, no way in a rational society should that be any kind of news. In fact, in a rational society, that would be an expected response when a rude Indian pounds his drum in your face.

    • I, OTOH, have observed an enormous increase in the number of nearsighted people I encounter since the Governor of Texas ended the lockdown. You see, ever since that day I have refused to wear a mask. Since I stopped wearing a mask I have noticed a lot of people who appear to be nearsighted. I mean what other explanation can there be for all the people looking at me and squinting?😉😁

  19. “There are customs and institutions, for sure, but those are things that evolved within a people over a period of trial and error.”

    These customs and institutions didn’t just arrive out of the clear blue sky. As you say, they came about to solve some kind of problem. The solution has to be acceptable to those in power at the moment.

    The Jeffrey Epstein imbroglio is a good example. While being called a sexual predator and pedophile, Epstein was actually following the tenets of nature itself, which allows post-pubescent female humans to engage in sex and bear children. There’s nothing un-natural about that. It must be a truly naive and inexperienced person that believes that a 16 year-old female can’t be manipulative and devious and willing to use her wiles on an older man for her own purposes.

    Furthermore, in our present society, where adolescence can extend into the third decade of life, don’t the parents of these women bear the responsibility for their well-being? Is it normal and acceptable to society for them to allow their “children” to fly off to Caribbean islands with strangers? If Epstein was a deviant/criminal what were the parents of these babies?

    Then there’s Ghislaine Maxwell. There’s no record of her holding a gun on one of these teen-age strumpets to get them on the Lolita Express. In fact, if what she’s done is a crime then anyone who arranges a blind date that’s unsatisfactory to either party is liable for the same action.

      • Indeed. How did this one get over the great divide? May be we should throw him back? What errant nonsense.

        Classical Marriage arose the way it did because it was a good deal for everyone. Men and women could divide tasks, and combine resources and accomplish more as a team than as individuals. Molesting children has never been a survival trait and the problems with it are obvious… except to a significant number of jewish perverts and their sycophants.

        • Translated to English that’s almost exactly what a Muslim cleric would say. Make them wear burkhas and veils in public and don’t let them loose on their own.

          • And? Islam recognizes something important about unfettered sexuality. The mores of Christianity addressed the same problems in a way that I think is superior, but that doesn’t mean Islam was wrong in its diagnosis.

            Then we abandoned the lessons of centuries.

            Islam isn’t wrong to despise the morality of the modern West.

    • Epstein and Maxwell were manipulative sociopaths, using vulnerable “white trash” girls for their own perverse gratification, and to obtain blackmail material on politicians and other power players.

      Maxwell’s father, UK media baron Robert Maxwell, was known as “Israel’s Superspy”. Epstein was a member of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, along with his good buddy Bill Clinton.

      • All of that is true, but mostly irrelevant to the points he made.

        Biological reality is that post pubescent “teenage” girls have been sexual active throughout human history.

        Trading sex for money or other material advantage is icky to us, but has been happening forever.

        If in this particular case, Epstein and Gislane were taking advantage of the women in some way, where the fuck were their parents when they disappeared for days at a time? Why wasn’t that abuse by the parents?

        I’m coming to believe that the UR problem with YT cultures that led to all the others was white knighting women.

        • All of us are being raped by these elitists every day, mentally and physically, and they use the “weapon of language” to tie us down.

          The way women in general and motherhood in particular have been degraded over the past 60 years is shocking. “Our side” is doomed to literal extinction unless that bondage can be broken.

        • Epstein and those like him are opportunistic parasites drawn to a dysfunctional society they both exploit and encourage.

          Epstein is just an uglier face of the same thing going on at Disney, Nickelodeon and the culture in general, and it has been going on for generations.

          First destroy the morals of the people (literally “demoralize”) then snap up the vulnerable offspring of the weakened people.

          Sure, the girls’ parents were terrible, but it is the Epsteins of the world — both literally him and those exploiting our children in the name of progressive “morality” that need to be eliminated from the society, to allow society to heal, to return to strong, protective familial relationships.

          Blaming the parents is useless. Blaming the girls is disingenuous. Saying Epstein was just doing what’s biologically normal because post-pubescent girls are sexually mature is embracing the same ideology that allowed these horrors to spread through our society in the first place.

          To do any of those things you have to look the wolf in the face, then turn around and say, “Meh. The problem’s somewhere else.” Well, it might be. In the mirror.

          • Take a look at a picture of Harvey Weinstein and his former wife Georgina Chapman. This repulsive, obnoxious slob was married to an attractive woman 24 years younger than he. Why do you suppose this elegant lady even deigned to speak to that oaf, much less exchange vows with him? Do you think that she’d have become just as enamored if Harvey had been the driver of the car that took her back and forth to the studio instead of the head of the production company? Or was she simply putty in the greasy fingers of that prick?

            An interesting aspect of the “Me, Too” movement is that it considers females to be idiots, incapable of taking care of themselves. The only real voice of reason in this argument is Camille Paglia, who says that women are responsible for themselves.

          • ” The only real voice of reason in this argument is Camille Paglia, who says that women are responsible for themselves.”

            Women are, in a lot of cases, idiots with regard to their sexuality and modern society encourages them to be so. That’s why we developed customs and institutions — “social constructs” over thousands of years to safeguard women’s sexuality.

            Those Victorian mores that insisted that women should be chaperoned in the presence of men weren’t just made up for kicks or to oppress women.

            That’s the point of this entire article!

            Camille Paglia is a societal wrecker. She’s simply more discreet about it.

          • I should add that men, too, are idiots with regard to their sexuality and the societal customs also protected *them* from the consequences of “thinking with their little head.”

            The customs were there for a reason!

          • “Women are, in a lot of cases, idiots”

            So, we arrive at the inescapable conclusion, what this entire discussion boils down to, women are different than men and can’t be treated as men are. They have occupied a certain place in society for millennia and do so to this day in many societies. Their struggles to become fighter pilots, firemen,CEOs, priests, cops and congressmen have simply resulted in embarrassment.

        • If your response to teenaged white girls being plied with drugs and booze and then raped is “they had it coming,” then you are a moral midget and too short for this ride.

        • “Epstein and Gislane were taking advantage of the women in some way, where the fuck were their parents when they disappeared for days at a time?”

          they probably died or were ruined when america saved the precious muslims by destroying yugoslavia.
          j*uws came in & grabbed some young girls like they did back in their khazarian days.
          lots of children get kidnapped in eastern europe if parents are broke.

          Long live american j*uwcracy!

        • In today’s sick, sad world the truth is that there are tons of parents who are more than willing to pimp their kids out for money and fame.

  20. I may have shared this before here but it bears repeating given the topic. I once had a very prescient professor (in the before times) who said “Those who do not understand how words are used will be used by them”. Wise as he was I’m not sure even he could have predicted today’s tyranny of words.

    • It’s simple really.
      Control the vocabulary, control the language.
      Control the language, control the narrative.
      Control the narrative, control . . .
      Damned near everything!
      War is peace.
      Freedom is slavery.
      Ignorance is strength.

      Forget Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus, it’s Orwell who gets my vote for greatest prophet since Biblical times!

  21. Yet another great post. This cognitive ellipses really sticks with me though:

    “the default for eons”

    The dissonance of facts and clear language for the beclowned, wine-besotted Aunt has an analogue in traditionalist’s “default for eons” though. What if I am a Bedouin and I say that buggery has always been the way our tribe deals with outsiders. Why should I have to explain or justify the default for eons, he says, as he rips your pants off and goes to work on your hind-end.

    I get the feeling that you wouldn’t be so deferential to the default for eons in such a scenario.

    And that gets to heart of the matter: What really was the default for eons? Seems like poor people probably lived in communal huts, were polygamous, and maybe even were cannibals in a lot of places.

    I don’t know that there ever really is any reasoning with anybody anymore. Seems like everyone figures out what side you are on and then based on that you get rewarded or punished.

    • Since the psychology tends towards “picking sides” as the default, then perhaps we should use our words to create a strong, positive image for “our side”.

      We could start with a simple slogan like “Civilized Life Matters”, and force the other side to argue against it. The goal is to put globo-homo on the defensive, to show them up as corrupt and degenerate, and to get the “silent majority” to support our vision instead of theirs.

    • The poison of cultural cowardice and moral relativism. Have the courage to defending your own culture instead of gauging in musings about theoretical buggering savages. You’ll know what to do when you encounter them.

      “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.” ― Charles James Napier

      • Indeed. Practically speaking, “Vae victis” is the only truly universal custom in our fallen world. The victor dictates the terms of conquest; and the vanquished submit. So fight to win or die trying.

      • Exactly. The default for eons is that we will kick your butt. That’s about it.

  22. In re: Takimag — that was the funniest misquote of Glubb I’ve ever read. Depressing, but funny.

    “This new religion, the worship of black people, may be the sign we have reached the final stage. It comes crashing down in an orgy of crime, foot washing, and self-flagellation by a people no longer fit to rule.”

    • It may get me sent to the gulag but I categorically refuse to genuflect in the presence of holy negro. Actually, being non-Catholic, I have never genuflected in my life and see no reason to start now!

  23. You have to wonder when, or even if reality will ever make itself known in dramatic fashion. The longer this garbage goes on, the more likely people will accept it as “reality”. When are we going to start hearing the sun actually rises in the west, the sky isn’t blue and snow isn’t white?

    • The patina lent by the appeal to authority is irrestibale.

      The “Harvard Implicit Association Test” should be right up there in credibility with the Myers-Brigs personality test, astrology, and phrenology but..

      It’s HARVARD. Smurt people go to HARVARD. You’re not qualified to call it quackery because you didn’t go to HARVARD.

      (the IAT is a whole steaming mess of quackery. Don’t bother taking it…I’ll spare the suspense: you’re secretly racist)

      • “The ‘Harvard Implicit Association Test’ should be right up there in credibility with the Myers-Brigs personality test…”

        Unfortunately *it is*!

        You’ll find supposedly respectable businessmen pushing Myers-Briggs or clones of it on hapless employees all over the country as part of employee “development” exercises.

      • Racism is a nothingburger. If I have white privilege, then I intend to enjoy it. As for blacks, they’re 13% of the national population. They were once enslaved; now they’re not. For that fact alone they should be supremely grateful; but gratitude is completely foreign to their nature.
        When a child continually whines for a cookie and the adult capitulates, this enervates both. To then have to listen to the child gripe about the quality or size of the cookie is frankly an inducement to rage. Finally, one is told that striking a child — even as a means of discipline — is no longer permitted. Is it any wonder that cognitive dissonance exists?

    • It is now widely accepted as “reality” that the extra CO2 produced by human activity is somehow responsible for catastrophic “global warming”, that the only solution to this problem is a “zero carbon” future, etc. This is even a fanatical religious belief for some, and woe unto any heretic who says otherwise!

      Of course, this myth has been crafted and promoted by the oligarchs of the CFR, the Bilderberg group, the Club of Rome, the World Economic Forum, the UN, etc. to advance their own “global governance” agenda.

      • The unstated goal of’ “carbon reduction'” is the removal of the carbon-based lifeform known as man.

      • . Agree that “climate change” is a racket that, in money terms, probably has already outstripped what was spent on trying to achieve racial equality. As contentious subjects go, it’s still more acceptable to debate global warming than wokeism in public. I post on some forums as one of the “deniers.” It’s fun to poke fun at greens who, for example, claim that wind & solar power is already cheaper than coal. “Why then are so many nations still building coal plants, if that is the case?” Alas, as is often lameted here, it’s close to useless trying to reason with these people.

    • usNthem,

      I believe it was Orwell who pointed out that getting people to repeat ‘facts’ they know aren’t true— but which they’ll be severely penalized for not publicly embracing— is a totalitarian strategy of threat of humiliation leading to unthinking compliance.

  24. A similar method is to attach a qualifier to the norm, frex:

    Responsible steward (of the land, or whatever)

    This creates the illusion that the =default= state is the “irresponsible steward” — and normal ordinary stewards are now forced to defend themselves and prove that they too are “responsible” lest they be cast into the outer darkness. (And the way it’s framed, this results in having to prove a negative: “I’m not irresponsible” vs ever-tightening definitions of “responsible”.)

    [Slightly obfuscated to head off a different argument, but I’ve seen an entire formerly-honorable profession denigrated and ultimately destroyed by recasting them as the bad guys via the addition of this single qualifier. Meanwhile, the profession was entirely taken over by actual bad guys who framed themselves as the arbiters of “responsible”.]

  25. Short version: this is what the Frankfurt Schooll hath wrought. Disfiguring language is the final step toward obliterating objective reality. Even now objective reality is denounced as “racist” or “transgendered” or whatever is the current hobgoblin of totalitarians and/or psychopaths. Objective reality no longer is required even within a courtroom as evidenced by the Chauvin trial and the judicial commissars hellbent on sending insurrectionists, a/k/a political opponents, to America’s Lubyanka.

    As an aside, but not unrelated, it hit me this weekend why there has been such a meltdown over Liz Cheney, a totally grotesque and despicable monster. The GOP, of course, rightfully sees her as a last vestige of their unbridled graft and deception. The Left, and that is all that matters, thinks it no longer has the power to determine who the controlled opposition is (it may indeed have lost that control but that’s for another time). Just as the Left distorts language to wrleild power, it distorts political discourse to define acceptable opposition.

    • The entire Liz Cheney thing is bizarre.

      She, and many others are speaking and acting as though she has the level of power her father once held.


    • Liz Cheney is a former CFR member, and daughter of former CFR director Dick Cheney.

      Here’s a short article on the history of the “culture war” launched by the Frankfurt School emigres, and the “Congress for Cultural Freedom” of the 1950s and 60s. The article mentions Allen Dulles, Henry Luce, C.D. Jackson, etc. Nearly all of them were CFR members:

  26. When the church I used to belong to was debating same-sex marriage because of a bad choice in calling a new pastor, they held a struggle session to “debate” the issue. The bishop was there to help. He changed the words of a question I submitted from “same sex” to “same gender” as if he were correcting a student’s homework assignment. The whole denomination was converged. Found a new church soon thereafter.

    • My bet is, if you could interrogate him as to why he made the change, he could not explain it. He would belch out some nonsense about inclusive language. He has no idea why he instinctively replaces sex with gender. It’s just what his hive does, so he does it too.

      • I would not take your bet. Tje same applies to those who cite science to justify their positions. Ask them what a null hypothesis is and watch them blank out.

      • I agree about their use of “gender” (properly speaking, I think gender refers to declension of nouns e.g. “grammatical gender”).

        It doesn’t help that “sex” became shorthand for coitus at some point in the recent past.

        • To be clear – I mean I agree their use of “gender” is a weaponization of language.

    • It really is easier than ever to find a decent church. You can ask: “should women be pastors?” and “should homos get married?”.

      If the answer is anything other than “no” and “no”, you go elsewhere.

      • It’s astonishing how many Christians— while insisting that the Bible is in some real sense “inspired by God”— feel free to pick and choose which Biblical injunctions they’ll heed, and which they’ll ignore: like the ones condemning homosexuality or mandating male headship and female submission.

        The Chinese restaurant menu approach: pick one from column A and one from column B.

        But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if it’s ALL from God…?

      • question-why do you “need” church at all? Can you not talk or pray directly to your deity without involving a paid third party intermediary to interpret your deity’s wishes? From my experience, people attend church for all kinds of reasons not very many of which actually have to do with the love of God. They attend church to find a new mate, show off their new attire, make themselves important by seeking status in church activities, seek out fresh victims to scam or abuse etc. I equate church with gang as their practices are very similar and boil down to a need to belong as if being independent were some kind of shameful thing.

        • Right, if we just vote by mail harder and post more comments on Zman we are going to change the world! No need to even leave the house.

        • Not to say that there aren’t bullshiters at church too – that’s why I give sparingly – but it’s not like I don’t have an agenda either…

        • Catholics and Orthodox believe that public mass is the offering of Christ’s sacrifice to God. The people are their to support the priest/bishop in this. For Catholics and Orthodox, there is a public aspect to the faith that is an absolute requirement.

        • The leftists who marched like Sherman through our culture did the exact opposite of what you suggest. They organized and very publicly proselytized for their morality. Had they limited their relationship with their Socially Constructed god to quiet contemplation at home, the dissident right would to this day represent a completely uncontroversial center.

        • Nah, we’re supposed to gather for worship. Still possible to do without giving in to the poz

        • I don’t disagree, Mr. Cameron, however scarf wearing women , Latin mass and communion on the tongue must be pretty weird for most Catholics born in the last 50 years (I can’t begin to think what an Evangelical or atheist would think). However, I drive past thirty empty, cold and sterile Vatical II Catholic churches to attend such a mass and be part of that community.

          • I came across this editorial by Leonard Pitts a few weeks ago. Pitts is a long-time member of the Negro intelligentsia, a former recipient of a participation Pulitzer, despite having nothing interesting to say. He writes that the steady erosion of church attendance is due to, you guessed it, churches moving in a conservative direction. They can’t stop being wrong.


          • @KGB – not just wrong. They literally invert everything. It’s like bizarro world from the old superman comics.

          • I was raised by Fundamentalist Christians. I can tell you what they think: Catholics are Satanic Idol worshipers who follow the Pope, who is himself a representative of pure evil.

  27. We are not reasoning, shaming, or voting our way out of this. At some point we will have to start shooting.

    • One of the observations made the book Demon in Democracy is that the people committed to communism quickly jumped to liberal democracy when the Soviet Union collapsed. They update their language, but the habits of mind did not change. It is another bit of data in support of the idea it is biological.

      • You have to understand that most women are fascists and socialists by nature. Your founding fathers understood this, and wisely forbade them the vote or positions of authority.

        I strongly believe the biological vector is the women. There are already many reasons for women to be unhappy – some legit, some not. An unhappy woman is the devil’s workshop and when they go to the dark side, many will take their men with them.

        • Orthodox and Reformed Christian churches forbid women from teaching men. Wisdom seems best followed.

        • Glen: “You have to understand that most women are fascists and socialists by nature.”

          Putting aside that I think that fascism is our only means of survival in the near future, I take your point.

          At the risk of simping for the women I must point out that they have little agency or ability for independent thought.

          Someone else put those ideas in their heads and promoted the women who parroted these ideas. The women are pawns.

          • Agreed.

            The women at my church are not afflicted with it nearly as much as modern “empowered” women. That crap gets beat out of them as children, and traditional family values tend to encourage women to rise above it…

      • That is a good point, but in point of fact, they had no choice but to jump to liberal democracy, and its economic system, capitalism. Fukyuama’s thesis had a great deal of purchase back then. The communists could either get on history’s locomotive or get run over by it. Once the communists and other assorted Leftists made this transition, they set to on liberal democracy with hammer and tongs and transmogrified it into the horror we see today. Funny how victory in the Cold War proved to be the beginning of the end.

        • If there is greater irony than that – I’d be interested to read it.

    • As I written before, many of us have reached the point of no longer wanting to argue with the other side. We just want a divorce. Once you hit that point in a relationship, it’s hard to go back.

      The problem, of course, is that the other side can’t let us go. They need us to keep the system running and as their emotional devil.

      • That is a good analogy. When you divorce, you need time by yourself to grieve, to think, and to NOT think – everything is focused on healing.

        In those tragic cases where men lose their chit and murder their ex’s and kids in grizzly murder/suicides… it’s because the woman wouldn’t give him his space and distance.

        As our esteemed blog host likes to say… this will not end well.

    • Who would you shoot, comrade? How big is your army? Would the public support you or lynch you? If you win the war, how would you control the replacements? Better think this through before you pull the trigger…

      • JohnSmith, your observations are all correct. However, I think that Glen’s point is that our worst option is our only option.

        Our backs are against the wall but our prosperity hides this fact to most eyes. Once the veil of prosperity falls, many more people will see the desperate truth in Glen’s message.

        • pith•y pĭth′ē►
          adj. Precisely meaningful; forceful and brief.
          That statement is representative as it gets

        • No, we could do what the Ashkenazi and lots of other people in History did and just convert to Islam or Judaism, blend in, and in reality in the privacy of our homes practice whatever religion we feel like.

          There are tons of options. This has happened to civilizations and peoples thousands of times in history. We lost.

        • Disagree that this is the “only option”. It’s wishful thinking that you could solve any of this with a shotgun, like a hero in some kind of DR video game.

          If we are not bold enough or clever enough to win the ideological battle, mainly within our own tribe first, then it will truly be “game over”.

    • Well, I won’t say too much, but I don’t see any point in arguing with local leftists on the school board who want to encourage white children to be trans and homos. Words aren’t going to stop them. The number of people actually promoting it, though, are remarkably few. We are just weak.

      • Not enough of us occupy positions of power. I’ve been on the ascent. I’ve had to make a public decision based upon my conscience, the one I learned in the old time Boy Scouts. Suddenly I had no public supporters and I was informed that I was no longer on the ascent. I blew it because I did the right thing but it wasn’t what my sponsors had wanted.

Comments are closed.