Some problems with Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism

Not long ago, I got through Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism. The author was a Communist, though not exactly the typical type.  He was what one might call a True Believer, but became disappointed in the way the early Soviet Union was going.  What happened to all the nice talk about democracy, and especially all the fun and games?

The book also is notable for marking an early divergence between orthodox Marxism and cultural Marxism.  The history of this early beginning is pretty well-known from the writings of William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan.  However, if you want to hear it from a friendly source, Wilhelm Reich was around to witness all that and described it in detail.

Throughout, the book does suffer from a couple of problems in its analysis, which are described below.

Overreliance on Marxist theory

No, not that kind of cleavage!

There is much discussion of what the author calls “cleavage.” It’s not as beautiful as it sounds. It’s about what other Marxists call “false consciousness.” Particularly, it’s the matter of why most of the working class rejects Communism, even though according to their theory it should be in the workers’ best interests. Why don’t proletarians want a Dictatorship of the Proletariat? (This is the opposite of the “champagne socialist” paradox; Reich correctly regarded wealthy leftists as having irrational motives.) The usual hasty conclusion is that the rubes don’t know what’s good for them, so the wise Marxists must call the shots on their behalf. The author does take the time to explore the matter in depth. Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand their motivations. It’s true that there’s a theoretical natural tendency for the rich to be rightists and the poor to be leftists, but there’s much more to the picture than economics alone.

I have some better answers. Some modesty regarding their claims to infallibility and the prophetic powers of Marx, as well as some honest introspection about how they’ve alienated the working class, could’ve spared them a lot of pointless theorizing. Since Communists can’t rely on generating popular support to attain power, and have to use subversion tactics, coups, and invasions instead, they should think about what they’re doing wrong. They need to get a clue that the proletariat doesn’t want their noses rubbed in degeneracy and “woke” nonsense.

What’s been missing throughout the book is sufficient understanding that there’s a lot more to politics than merely economics. The author certainly understood the limitations of dialectical materialism and its economite perspective, yet fell into the trap sometimes. Social policy matters a lot. There was some awareness of that, but it seems he determined that the proletariat needed “sexual liberation” (whether they liked it or not) and then everything would fall into place with the working class embracing Marxism. Did it ever occur to leftists to ask the public’s permission before rolling out social experiments or rearranging their culture?

Regarding the question of why the lower middle class isn’t more leftist, even though the rich shmucks in the ruling class don’t give a damn about them, the distinction he missed still exists. Garden-variety Republicans aren’t in it to suck up to the globalist billionaire exploiters who shipped their jobs overseas. Instead, they want to preserve their culture. That’s why they support the party that pretends to care.

In several places, the naïve nostalgia for wise Uncle Lenin’s reign is rather misplaced. Wilhelm Reich actually believed that the Soviet public had a say in their government at the time. Blaming the victims, he criticizes the masses for not guarding their liberty – as if they could elect their rulers freely, or even influence anything the Kremlin did. He lengthily describes how the workers’ councils of the Soviet system formed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and he didn’t realize that the Party always called the shots. It seems he also mistook the Bolshevik coup for a popular uprising. Did he also think the Politburo began as the Russian version of Robin Hood’s Merry Men? One might wonder if he believed in fairies too, but he certainly wasn’t the only wonderfully enlightened thinker fooled by the “workers’ paradise” propaganda. He did get wise to the tyranny, but was mistaken to think it was ever different.

There’s much discussion about work-democracy, particularly in the last quarter of the book. That includes some scathing remarks about politicians who don’t even need a license to wreck a country. Still, much remains unclear about how things actually would work in the better society he envisions, particularly who calls the shots. From the name, work-democracy seems to be a flavor of syndicalism, though key details remain unexplained. He mentions a couple of Scandinavian monographs about it which made a modest splash back in the day; perhaps they contain the missing information.

Overreliance on Freudian theory

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a donut is just a donut

The new preface in the book’s third edition describes a tripartite model of the mind. These concepts further develop Freudian theories and fully merge the layers of the mind with the ego-superego-id concepts, though with a unique take on all that. (Similar ideas appeared much earlier in Plato’s Republic; either Freud reworked them or reached similar conclusions.) There actually is a neurobiological basis to the tripartite mind, though some of the details are different.

Is it really a good idea to put the biologic core (essentially the Freudian id) in the driver’s seat? Raw impulses from the limbic system tend to be pretty amoral, for one thing. The reptile brain is oriented toward self-preservation and is positive in that regard, but is poorly equipped to handle social settings unassisted by rational consciousness. Neither does it understand moderation. For example, obeying the bodily desires to the point that one weighs over seven hundred pounds would be a mistake. Other unfiltered hedonistic behavior can invite problems too; as the proverb goes, it’s better to think with the big head than the little one. Therefore, unqualifiedly declaring the biologic core to be inherently virtuous is a bit of a stretch.

Meanwhile, Freud’s understanding of the unconscious mind became outmoded. It’s indeed the soul’s dark basement, but for most people, there are fewer skeletons lying about than the Freudians assumed, and more treasure chests. It can be understood better as the background mental processes that happen without focused thought. The conscious mind can’t directly interrogate it or be aware of what it’s doing, which makes the unconscious sort of a “great unknown” in terms of psychology. Still, by itself, that’s not inherently so malevolent or scary.

By contrast, the conscious mind has a more favored place, associated with the power of reason. There’s something to this. Still, even the conscious mind isn’t impeccably virtuous by nature, since people deliberately can choose bad behavior and think up rationalizations for it.

There are good reasons for the unconscious mind to exist. Much of it is the mammalian brain, the seat of emotions; we wouldn’t be who we are without it. Language processing is another useful thing that the background circuitry in the unconscious mind does while we’re barely aware that it’s even happening. Having a conversation would be difficult if the conscious mind had to burn lots of CPU cycles to identify phonemes and parse them into words, and while replying, use focused effort to make the mouth and vocal cords form every single sound. You learned to talk as a young child; long ago, all that got imprinted into the brain’s background circuitry.

Is it really true that liberalism is a product entirely of the conscious mind, and Fascism is from the unconscious mind? Reich’s analysis is off here. The unconscious mind is the realm of settled habit, and this is so for any ideology to which someone is particularly committed. Leftists pride themselves on being rational, open-minded, nonconformist, and all the rest of it, but this is only advertising boilerplate that doesn’t matter in practice. (In fact, their ideology includes several “get out of logic free” cards. Still, pointing out their conformity drives them berserk.) Once their beliefs are imprinted on an unconscious level, they’re just as stubbornly committed to them as anyone else, and will just as readily tune out any arguments or inconvenient facts that don’t accord with The Narrative. Other than that, the assertion that Fascism doesn’t have a rational basis – easily refuted by reading Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism – is a perfect illustration of the power that fixed ideas have over leftists.

What about Freud’s “hydraulic” model of sexuality, in which repressed impulses will spill out elsewhere and cause neuroses? There’s something to that, but that’s not a good argument for “anything goes” libertinism. It’s better to encourage a healthy channel for sexuality that goes along with normal family formation. This requires promoting healthy moral standards and a healthy social environment. (These are the things Wilhelm Reich was complaining about bitterly.) The middle course between prudishness and libertinism is sensibility. Other than that, several religious traditions recognize that unreleased sexual energy can be sublimated to positive ends, such as extra vitality. Even Reich would agree that orgone is good for more than just orgasm. Thus, the Freudian idea on this matter is hardly unchallenged.

Wilhelm Reich did make some bold departures from Freudianism, but would’ve done better to diverge further still. Freud was a sharp cookie, but sometimes he really dropped the ball. Moreover, he wasn’t actually the Seal of the Prophets of psychology as his followers made him out to be. He did develop some important concepts, but his nearly cultish prominence – persisting for decades thereafter – held back the field somewhat during a time when knowledge otherwise was growing. (For example, perhaps traumatic experiences during potty training can cause future problems, but usually there are more plausible explanations for hang-ups.) Anyway, science marched on, so maybe I charitably should let the author take a mulligan on all that.

Some problems with Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism

Leftists who want to put their opposition into reeducation camps should be careful what they wish for

Lately, Resident Joe Bidet cheated his way into the White House. The Democrats also were up to their old tricks again in the Georgia runoff, giving them the Senate. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Evil Party will do whatever they can to grant themselves a permanent lock on the Federal government and shut out the Stupid Party, not that it makes all that much difference at this point. They might even try to pack the Supreme Court, something even FDR didn’t dare attempt. They’re certainly going to go full speed ahead with population replacement migration, keeping the USA on track toward having a non-white majority. I wouldn’t be surprised if amongst themselves they giggle about that like little girls.

You’d think the Bidet supporters would be happy now that they got just about everything they want. Instead, there’s been a lot of talk about taking thought control to the next level. Some of them call Trump supporters “brainwashed,” at best it’s the pot calling the kettle black. Others call for “deradicalization,” “deprogramming,” and even that evocative old word “re-education.” They’re all but giggling like little girls about that one too.

NewsWars made a handy compilation of some prominent figures pushing for this. The first citation was by the “cult expert” Steve Hassan, who thereby outed himself as a major league douchebag. Then there was “America’s Sweetheart” Katie Couric:

On HBO’s “Real Time” last Friday, TV news anchor Katie Couric pondered how the left was going to “deprogram” Trump supporters from the “cult of Trump” once Biden assumes office.

“They bought into this big lie. And the question is, how are we going to, really, almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump?” she asked Bill Maher.

If that doesn’t shake someone’s faith in the concept of the press as an ideologically neutral pillar of democracy, then I don’t know what will. Anyway, all this is talk so far – and apparently a lot of it – but what exactly are they planning to do? That’s what television is for, of course. However, if TV is failing to indoctrinate tens of millions of the public, then presumably all this reeducation will require a reeducation camp.

And last week, Project Veritas captured PBS’ principal lawyer Michael Beller admitting that the left is aiming to take away the children of Trump supporters to be “re-educated” when Biden becomes president.

“We go for all the Republican voters and Homeland Security will take their children away. . . we’ll put them into the re-education camps.”

So at least for some leftists out there, that’s exactly what’s on the table. Kicking sand in our faces just isn’t enough for them.

The archetypal example

The term “reeducation camp” tends to conjure up the Vietnamese experience. After Henry Kissinger bungled the Paris Peace Accords by negotiating a sucker deal, South Vietnam was overrun a couple of years later in a sneak attack. Only a token American presence remained, per the terms of the treaty, unable to defend our ally. The shaky Ford administration couldn’t even get Congress to send aid.

Then the Fall of Saigon occurred, something I found chilling even though I was very young and up to that point had no awareness of what was going on. After seizing power, former government officials and military officers were rounded up and taken into custody. The new Marxist régime promised it would be just a few months at most, but actual conditions turned out to be far worse, especially for those on their shit list. Even our good friends at WaPo tell us that the experience certainly was no picnic:

The reeducators gave seven, week-long political lessons, [former General Nguyen Huu] Co recalled, following each with reading and discussion among the generals. The instructors were not interested in back talk. “We couldn’t say frankly that we had not fought against our homeland,” he said. [. . .]

After the first three years, Co’s situation deteriorated sharply. He and his fellow generals were moved to a new camp in northern Vietnam, near the border with China. There they faced forced labor and short rations. No packages from home were allowed for the first year in the new camp; one every other month was permitted in the second. Letters were permitted once every two months. “That camp was the hardest,” he said.

Apparently this seems to be what leftists today think we deserve, because we disagree with their wise opinions.

Two can play that game

Leftists need to understand that karma is a bitch with fleas. As their own proverb went back in the 1960s, “What goes around, comes around.” It’s a common historical theme that leftists keep pushing the envelope with outrageousness. Meanwhile, rightists play Mr. Nice Guy until they finally get sick of putting up with all the nonsense. Our patience has been far too great thus far, but it’s not inexhaustible. The globalists and their leftist proxies are making a grave miscalculation to think they have impunity to kick a sleeping giant indefinitely. Any nasty stuff they do to us will, by their own example, be fair game in return.

If we decide to follow suit, then what would one of our reeducation camps be like? If it comes to that, let’s see if we can come up with a basic model, and have a little more panache than the leftist version. First up will be the daily schedule, then the intake process, and a ten week instructional program in three phases for recovery from leftism. It’s difficult to recover from a lifetime of indoctrination, but the following course will offer a good chance of rehabilitating degenerate snowflakes into decent citizens.

Reveille is at 0400, followed by roll call. Then mandatory hygiene will follow; leftists sure need a lot of it. Recruits who refuse will be taken to the Bull Connor Memorial Courtyard to get showers delivered by fire hoses. Wash that funk off the skin, or else it gets the hose again! At daybreak, recruits will perform the Bellamy salute during the flag-raising ceremony. Training follows through the day, as detailed further below. Lights out is at 2100. At 2115, everyone gets up again to scrub the barracks with toothbrushes until the place sparkles for the morning inspection. Those displaying incorrect attitude will be voluntold to stand fire watch duty during the night, in addition to being gigged with other penalties as needed.

Week 0 (Reception): On Monday, recruits arrive at the base, on cattle cars of course. Belongings will be searched for contraband. If an iPhone, iPad, or another Crapple slave labor product is found, the recruit will be required to smash it with a sledgehammer. Then they’ll report for delousing. For a cute practical joke, it will be a shower room cleverly disguised as a gas chamber. Then they’ll get pinstriped uniforms, along with triangular patches for helpful identification of their personal problems.

Camp orientation follows. The first item is that they’ll be shown where the infirmary is; many new arrivals will need Red Pills to obtain relief from television withdrawal. A medic will be on hand throughout the reeducation experience to burst ideological bubbles. Recruits will receive an experimental mRNA vaccine against the cultural Marxism mind-virus.  It’ll be great if it works, and if it doesn’t work, well… Also, they’ll be drug tested, and any dopers will be required to smoke oregano and sniff scouring powder until they reach enlightenment.

On the next day, anyone with blue, green, or purple hair will get a free buzz cut, as well as those with whitey-dreads. The day after, they’ll have their PC blindfolds removed, the bananas pulled out of their ears, and a doctor specializing in cranio-rectal extraction will be on hand for difficult cases. The rest of the day, they’ll be put into formation and learn to goose step. On Thursday, their fitness level will be assessed to determine what kind of wimps they are. On Friday, they learn how to pick up their rooms for once. During times not otherwise occupied, recruits will shovel a pile of gravel from one side of a road to the other, then back again. Weaklings who can’t hack it will be sent to a room where they fill sandbags using a teaspoon. Recruits will be assigned to a drill instructor who promptly will point out their personal shortcomings in great detail. On Sunday, there will be a religious observance where they may worship a Peruvian helicopter that was in use during the Pinochet administration.

The remedial education syllabus for leftists

Week 1 (red phase begins): The first order of business is that recruits will undertake a crash course in history, since leftists never had proper instruction before. Major topics will include the self-evident truth of American exceptionalism, the glories of Western civilization, and how “People of Color” actually lived prior to colonialism bearing the torch of civilization. At the end of the week, they must produce an essay about all the things Howard Zinn got wrong.

Week 2: Recruits will study remedial math. There will be a special emphasis on statistics, so that they’re capable of discussing the topic intelligently for the first time in their lives. In particular, they’ll learn what an average is, and why statistical outliers don’t refute the average. Practical economics is another key focus. Their assignment for the week is to explain why money doesn’t grow on trees.

Week 3: The topic will be basic biology. Recruits will learn about prenatal development until they understand that a baby is not a “choice.” They also will study sexual dimorphism to rid them of the belief that there are more genders than Carter has liver pills. Finally, they’ll learn about basic genetics and why that matters. The required essay will be about why men can’t get pregnant, contrary to radical gender theory narratives popularized by the MSM. It shouldn’t take long; even a sentence is sufficient to explain the truth.

Week 4 (white phase begins): Race realism is the next subject, which will be studied from all angles. This especially includes why racial differences matter, particularly intelligence, crime rates, and average group behavior. Recruits will learn why mass Third World immigration, forced integration, and miscegenation are bad. Throughout the week, former race mixers will wear an “I defiled my race” placard and a noose around their necks. The essay topic is about how positive diversity means independent peoples living separately and at peace with their neighbors, rather than turning major cities into racial pressure cookers.

Week 5: The subject is a multifaceted presentation of the “JQ.” The writings of Kevin McDonald and others will be studied in depth. The list of horribles will be detailed, from Karl Marx and the Rothschilds down to Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein, and why they need to stop doing that. In the beginning, Members of the Tribe in attendance will be asked if they believe that collective guilt is a valid concept. Nothing happens to those who do not, but those who do believe in collective guilt will attend a special self-criticism session at the end.  There, they will check their privilege and apologize for everything their tribesmen did wrong. Then they’ll discuss their sincere commitment to be good citizens henceforth, and to remind any errant members of their tribe of the importance to do so. (Those who object will be invited to wash out of the program, renounce their citizenship, and buy a one-way ticket to Tel Aviv.) The essay will be about why rootless cosmopolitans need to start learning from their mistakes.

Week 6 (blue phase begins): This week, recruits will learn all about the MSM, who runs it, and how the countless TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and other outlets within five like-minded conglomerates and a controlled opposition conglomerate create a false illusion of choice. Former presstitutes will attend an all-day samokritika session tearfully repenting for every lie they told during their journalism careers. Those who refuse may opt out and wade through a hog lagoon all day instead. All recruits will write an essay about their personal experiences in how the MSM formed their incorrect viewpoints since childhood.

Week 7: Recruits will learn about the blood-soaked history of Communism and who started it and were the major participants and promoters. They’ll also learn that socialism doesn’t simply mean a bunch of free goodies. While other recruits throw rotten tomatoes at them, former Antifa members will perform samokritika describing how they were dupes thinking they were fighting The System but actually were serving as its paramilitary arm. At the end of the week, any unrepentant pinkos and comsymps will have to buy a one-way ticket to Pyongyang where they can spend the rest of their lives digging ditches for their buddy Kim Jong Un. The essay will be about why Senator Joseph McCarthy was a hero and the journalists opposing him were goddamn traitors.

Week 8: The next topic is globalism. First, recruits will be instructed in the century-long history of the Deep State. They’ll learn why democracy is a sham if both major parties answer to the same paymasters. They’ll study the web of unelected New World Order institutions and tricky foundations sometimes pretending to be humanitarians. They need to know that this gang has been conspiring to turn the entire world into a single police state run by billionaires, in which the impoverished masses are utterly dependent on the government. This week, any former Deep State members in attendance will wear sackcloth and ashes instead of their uniforms, and spend an hour a day sharpening guillotine blades. The essay will be about why Brave New World is a dystopia rather than a wonderful model for society.

Week 9: Instruction will be about the wrecking job that cultural Marxism has done over a century, and who started it. They will gain a new understanding of critical theory and its spinoffs, radical feminism, radical GLBTs, radicalized youth movements, minority agitation, and so forth. Former leftist professors will attend a lengthy struggle session while wearing dunce caps, confessing how they indoctrinated their students. Recruits will write an essay on the ways the dirty hippies, comsymps, and outside agitators ruined America during the 1960s.

Week 10: Finally, recruits will be instructed in all the things they never knew about the Third Reich and the Second World War. The first subject is the Marxist uprising in Germany at the end of the First World War, continued subversion efforts following that, and who was behind these things. More conditions during the Weimar Republic will be discussed: degeneracy and who promoted it, economic devastation and who profiteered from it, and so forth. Other topics are the international situation prior to and following the outbreak of war: Churchill’s secret war guarantee to Poland, FDR’s antagonistic policies toward Japan, his foreknowledge about Pearl Harbor and failure to put the base on alert after setting them up, FDR’s secret cables to Churchill plotting war, how the two gave away Eastern Europe to their buddy “Uncle Joe” Stalin during the Yalta conference, and so forth. The final essay of the course will be about why a war means that everyone gets their hands dirty.

For a bonus round, recruits will see a video tour of Auschwitz (some already exist) showing off amenities for the inmates, like the swimming pool, hospital, orchestra, soccer field, library, camp post office, and the brothel. (The recruits, deprived for nearly three months of their familiar comforts, may start to feel a bit envious at that point.) They’ll also notice the huge unused smokestack that doesn’t adjoin any building, built by Soviet army engineers who clearly didn’t understand the purpose of their orders. Of course, the presentation will include the alleged gas chamber, behind a regular office door with a window, with visible lines on the floor where ordinary interior walls and a toilet fixture used to be, and none of the characteristic blue stains on the bricks that would occur with repeated exposure to hydrocyanic gas.

Following the graduation ceremony, the recruits will now be decent citizens. They’ll get their civilian clothing back and may return to their normal lives. As a parting gift, graduates will receive free copies of David Duke’s My Awakening for further study, and a discount coupon to buy more copies at cost for their friends and family. Vouchers for retraining in real jobs will be offered for those formerly in unproductive and damaging pursuits like journalists, professional activists, diversity consultants, leftist professors, and social parasites.

Yes, it was a joke

Note well, this wasn’t a serious proposal, but instead was to make light of all this. That should go without saying. Although the leftists really want to rub our noses in it, we can show some magnanimity when it’s our turn. I only want the adults to be in charge henceforth, so that our country will become healthy and normal again. My snowflake boot camp idea was merely black humor. On the other hand, leftists seem to be pretty serious about what they want to do to anyone who disagrees with them.

Leftists who want to put their opposition into reeducation camps should be careful what they wish for

FTMs find out what male privilege gets you

According to feminists, The Patriarchy exists to grant men special privileges over women.  If you’re a dude, then other dudes can be counted on to help you out, giving you breaks denied to babes; Bob’s your uncle.  (They never explain how all this is organized and coordinated; it’s not even a conspiracy theory without a theory.)  Is it true?  Actual dudes will report that the world is “every man for himself”.  Lately, some female-to-male transsexuals have found that the truth about “male privilege” is the opposite of what The Narrative says.

The document it references is here.

It turns out that the “boys’ club” the feminists describe as The Patriarchy simply isn’t there.  In short, if you’re a guy (or perceived as one), the world is a bit harsher.  I hadn’t really noticed myself; I’ve never switched my Underoos, I don’t know what it’s like to be a girl, so I sort of assumed what I’m used to experiencing is normal.  However, what these FTMs were saying was pretty eye-opening.  Here’s some of what they reported:

  • Others are less likely to help you, or help you as much
  • Less trust, friendliness, and even eye contact
  • Your opinions are more likely to be disregarded, especially by snippy feminists who accuse you of “mansplaining”
  • They no longer received the little favors they’d been accustomed to as women
  • Nobody cares about their feelings now
  • Police will hassle them and profile them and won’t give them breaks

On the last one, from the original document:

I get pulled over a lot more now. I got pulled over more in the first two years after my transition than I did the entire 20 years I was driving before that. Before, when I’d been stopped, even for real violations like driving 100 miles an hour, I got off. In fact, when it happened in Atlanta the officer and I got into a great conversation about the Braves. Now the first two questions they ask are: Do I have any weapons in the car, and am I on parole or probation?

Once again, feminists are wrong.  Women aren’t oppressed; they’re coddled!

FTMs find out what male privilege gets you

Somebody that I used to know – a brief postmodern tragedy

Here’s a true vignette illustrating how much the social landscape has gone to hell in two decades.

December 31, 1999

I’m with an extended circle of friends in the woods.  We’ve built a fire, preparing to celebrate the turn of the millennium.  As the night draws on, I make out with a chubby brunette.  She’s always has been fun and vivacious; a defining characteristic of her personality.  What a magical evening!  Things don’t go any further than that with her, but it left fond memories.

Two years ago

I see the same person again, happy to see her.  I call out.  No answer.  Did she not hear me?  I call out again.  This time she answers.

Stop using my dead name!

By using this terminology, it seems she probably caught the radical gender theory mind-virus, and now believes she’s a man.  This is quite a surprise to me; I didn’t know she got a sex change, transitioned genders, switched her Underoos, or ever had any intentions of doing so.  Despite my lack of enthusiasm for this politically correct fad, I’ll go along with it in the name of being polite.

What would you like me to call you?

No answer.

That’s right.  The friendly, vivacious gal who once embraced me so warmly now ignores me, like I’m a bum begging for spare change or something.  Well now, that is all kinds of special.

Anyhow; since I was never informed what the new name is, I came up with something.  Henceforth, this individual will be “Somebody That I Used To Know” – and dead to me forever.

Somebody that I used to know – a brief postmodern tragedy

Who do Bill Gates and the other talking heads think they are?

This one’s going to be short and sweet.  The Wuhanic Plague talking heads like Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci keep moving the goalposts.  From what I’ve heard. Gates says that it’s going to be a long time before we can go back to normal.  Fauci says that even when people get vaccinated, they’ll still have to wear masks and practice social distancing.  Well, if it works, then why the security theater still?

On a side note, I refuse to get that vaccine.  I might’ve caught the bug early on, but if not, I’ll take my chances.  If anything goes wrong with that, I’m going to feel very bad for all those canaries in the coal mine.  Instead of shooting me up with that vaccine, they can go shoot me with a bullet instead.

True conversation I had with my doctor about Fauci:

Doc:  He’s clearly a smart guy, but he’s really been all over the place with this one.  Ten years ago, he was all over the place with HIV.
Me:  You mean whether we should use Trojans or flavored condoms?
Doc:  (laughing) Or poke holes in them!

Anyway, what’s the deal with Gates then?  He’s an ascended nerd, but doesn’t even have a medical degree.  He’s certainly not an elected official.  Who does he think he is to tell the world how we should live our lives?  Dude, having billions of dollars doesn’t mean you’re God!

Earlier this year, the Powers That Be told us “ten days to flatten the curve” and I’ll stick to that, thank you very much.

Who do Bill Gates and the other talking heads think they are?

OMFG how I love hate mail

I don’t do as much blogging here as I used to, after I started getting picked up by more established websites like Return of Kings and Counter-Currents.  Still, once every blue moon I’ll get feedback on something I wrote here.  Lately, I got a new item from Jason Blaustein on my “Cultural Marxism and the Social Justice Warrior cult” article.  This one is a little in-depth, so I figured I’d feature it up front here to answer him.  This has a most curious beginning:

“For instance, if you say that multiculturalism brings more friction into society – which is pretty obvious – then you’d better be careful about who’s listening.”
You mean these liars:

I would like to acquaint the esteemed and most eminently truthful Jason Blaustein with Dr. Robert D. Putnam.  He is a celebrated liberal professor at Harvard.  He set out to prove that diversity is beneficial.  However, his study found that the opposite was true.  To put it simply, more diversity means less social trust among the public.  The findings were so shocking to him that he sat on the data for a while.  (One can imagine it would’ve been quite disturbing indeed, like an archbishop finding evidence that God doesn’t exist or something like that.)  Still, ultimately honesty won out and he reported his results.

Then Jason quotes from my original article at length:

“This might seem like a pretty bold claim, but the LGBT movement is a pretty telling example, one front in the culture war. First they asked for acceptance. (Personally, that much seems reasonable enough to me.) They gained a lot of traction in the 1970s, then some resistance in the 1980s, and finally acquiescence in the 1990s. Then gays in the military became the cause du jour. They arrived at the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise, then acquiescence some years later. (For the military, this issue is a distraction at best, and a potential source of friction at worst; guys don’t like to take showers with guys who like to take showers with guys.) Then came the Boy Scouts issue; they finally had to give in on the “morally straight” business. (This wasn’t about inclusion; this was to punish a group that disagreed with them. Parents don’t want to send their boys out into the woods with a gay guy, and the activists were well aware of that.) The next push was gay marriage, which they lawyered up until the cows came home. The public was strongly against this, and it was rejected anywhere it was put to a democratic vote, even in California. Finally, the Supreme Court took their side, citing a Constitutional amendment intended to make sure that crimes against freedmen wouldn’t get ignored by local law enforcement. Right after they got their way with that one, the latest big hoopla is about transsexual bathroom preferences. One can only wonder what the next cause du jour will be. For the record, if two dudes want to hit it off in the privacy of their own homes, I’m not bothered by that. However, this small fraction of the public insisting that society bend over backwards on everything they ask for is a little much.”

Then he retorts with this:

Okay there is so much bs here that I need to give these links:

Dear lad, posting a couple of links full of talking points isn’t the same thing as a counterargument.

That said, just to clear up the record, I do not dislike gays as a category.  I’m not one of the “anything goes” crowd, but within reason, I’m fine with them doing whatever twists their nipples behind closed doors.  (The consequences don’t always stay behind closed doors, but that’s another matter.)  Gays have their own institutions and private spaces to be amongst themselves and do whatever pleases them, and I don’t have a problem with that much.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects of the GLBT political movement which I find objectionable.  They seek to make changes in the public arena (often quite aggressively), and since this is a public matter, others certainly are free to agree with them or challenge them.  Largely the objectionable things are a result of the way the movement developed, which didn’t have to be that way.

Sorry – nobody has special immunity from criticism!  Deal with it.

Jason continues:

The 14th amendment explicitly says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In short it was asking why heterosexuals were getting certain privileges involving free association.

Context matters.  This amendment had nothing to do with homosexuality.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the universe doesn’t rotate around you!

Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War.  (Since the Southern states were puppet governments at the time, its legitimacy is pretty questionable, but that’s another subject.)  Specifically, it pertains to the status of freed slaves, and it’s meant to ensure that local law enforcement doesn’t turn a blind eye to any crimes committed against them.  However, the loose wording tends to get twisted around a lot by liberal SCOTUS judges, shoehorning it to apply to whatever it is they want.  It’s too bad that history is so dumbed down in public education these days, which is one reason they get away with this trick and the public doesn’t notice.

That said, I’m not sure why this came up.  If it’s an argument that private organizations cannot have membership criteria – I think that’s what you were driving at – then it doesn’t make sense.  The 14th Amendment is binding on the government, not private organizations.

Also gsys are not pedos like you claim in your boy scout example:

I never said that all gays are kiddy fiddlers, but thanks for the straw man argument.  That said, there is a long-standing problem with pedophilia going all the way back to Harry Hay himself, continuing up to the presentThe GLBT political movement, for whatever reason, has not seen fit to distance itself from this loathsome fringe, even though they should.  Since you brought up the topic, you asked for it!  I went further into the history of the BSA controversy in the article “The Boy Scouts of America is in a death spiral after surrendering to the gay agenda“.  For example, as I wrote:

Unfortunately, they’ve had a long-standing pedophilia problem.  A court case in 2012 forced BSA to release a 20,000 page file documenting sexual abuse cases from 1965-85.  There were 1200 incidents, so that averages sixty badtouch cases per year that came to their attention.  A major reason they’re on the verge of bankruptcy lately is because they have 140 lawsuits pending, which resulted from scoutmasters who couldn’t keep their hands to themselves.

That was quite a lot of rubba-rubba going on, now wasn’t it?  Note well, this is exactly what BSA was trying to prevent with exclusionary policies.  Those are only the cases that they know about and were reported; how many other Boy Scouts were molested by perverts and now suffer in silent shame?

Since I wrote that article, the Boy Scouts did file bankruptcy.  Just as I’d predicted, removing all restrictions turned out to be the final nail in their coffin.  After BSA was forced to go inclusive, did any of the deep-pockets GLBT foundations help bail out their astronomical legal tab from the child sex abuse cases?  Of course not.

Following a long pattern of cultural Marxist agitation, the gay agenda raped and strangled Boy Scouts of America.  That’s right – they forcibly penetrated the organization and then left it to die.  Not only that, the decades-long lawfare campaign was an effort to enlist the power of the government in this effort.  Some people call this progress.

Finally, I’ll wrap up with a quotation from Deplorable Diatribes.  Enjoy!

It doesn’t make someone a bad person to have unusual proclivities, so long as they’re not inherently destructive, or taken to excess. (How one defines these things is a matter of debate, but work with me on this.) Reasonable accommodations for eccentricity can be made, within sensible limits. In the realm of pure theory, whatever goes on in the bedroom is fine so long as it stays in the bedroom. If this were the case in actual fact, it wouldn’t be too objectionable. In practice, it’s not as simple as that.

Whether we like it or not, sexual behavior has far-reaching consequences. This is in spite of the fact that it’s become unfashionable to say so given the popularity of the “whatever floats your boat” notion today. Traditionally, every culture – and ours is no exception – has moral standards; what it considers sensible limits. Generally that boils down to societal consensus. These customs sometimes differ according to time and place, and there may be debate about what is and isn’t proper. However, that’s not a valid argument to push the nihilist line and abolish morality, or go postmodernist and say all standards are meaningless. Sexuality affects society’s future, since this is how the next generation is created.

Specifically, in practice the gay movement became one more fashionable cultural Marxist cause that promotes disrupting normal family formation – though again, feminism is worse. Although a small fraction is inclined to homosexuality, it doesn’t make sense to glamorize it and encourage experimentation, especially by impressionable youths. This is but one example of something that transgresses necessary sensible limits.

Anyhow, thank you for sharing.

OMFG how I love hate mail

Antifa rioter in Portland learns to break dance

This one is short and sweet.  An Antifa rioter in Portland became a friendly fire casualty from a Molotov cocktail.  Other versions of this include “Walking On Sunshine” and “Beat It”.

Don’t try this at home, kids.  Rioting is not a game!

EDIT:  YouTube’s sheep-bothering censors struck again.  These analingus addicts think that they know best and should decide what you are and aren’t allowed to see.  Fortunately, there’s a very similar video up on Bitchute.  Enjoy!

Antifa rioter in Portland learns to break dance

Externalizer of the Oedipus Complex vandalizes sacred statue

To begin with, I’m not Catholic.  (In fact, I’m the worst Mormon since Joseph Smith himself.)  Still, there’s an article in the National Catholic Register that really has me seeing red, “Statue of Virgin Mary Beheaded at Tennessee Parish“.  What kind of a cockroach would do a thing like that?

Lately, there’s been an epidemic of vandalism directed at statues by sniveling leftist bedwetters, just as I predicted there would be.  This “cancel culture” business is nothing new.  During the Soviet days, whenever someone fell out of favor, they’d go to great lengths to erase his memory.  If the un-person was in a textbook, the teachers would direct their students to turn to the page with the illustration, then black out the picture or at least pencil out the eyes.  Wrecking statues is just a new iteration of this for today’s pinkos.

These “woke” douche-nozzles haven’t figured out that anyone who lived in the past is going to have some views that they don’t like.  They think they’re so righteous now, but the people of the future are going to look back on all this and see these idiots for who they are.  As for this particular incident, this one wasn’t just any old statue.  This was a statue honoring the nicest lady who ever walked the earth, and some loser chopped the head off.  My intuition tells me that whoever did that either likes his own mother funny, is a sheep botherer, or maybe cheats on Mom with a sheep.

Enough is enough.  I hereby put the vandals on notice.  Anyone who cuts off part of a statue just might suffer an untimely accident in which his own corresponding body part is cut off, because karma’s a bitch that way.

Externalizer of the Oedipus Complex vandalizes sacred statue