Murica

Diversity Doesn’t Sell

Even the rabidly regressive ideologues at Marvel who have spent the last 3 years denouncing pissed-off fans rejecting their shoving of SJW values down everyone’s throats are admitting that they have a bottom-line problem:


Reading between the lines of the signals from Marvel, it seems the company is pulling back on its push for greater representation and diversity in their titles and pursuing a strategy similar to what DC Comics dubbed “meat and potatoes” before their DC Rebirth relaunch.

A lot of people scoffed at Bleeding Cool’s reports as spin or rumormongering, but in a recent interview with ICv2, Marvel VP of Sales David Gabriel is blunt with his assessment of a Marvel sales slump that began last October. The reason given by Gabriel: people are “turning their noses up” at diversity.

From the interview:

Part of it, but I think also it seemed like tastes changed, because stuff you had been doing in the past wasn’t working the same way.  Did you perceive that or are we misreading that?

-No, I think so.  I don’t know if those customers with the tastes that had been around for three years really supporting nearly anything that we would try, anything that we would attempt, any of the new characters we brought up, either they weren’t shopping in that time period, or maybe like you said their tastes have changed.

There was definitely a sort of nose-turning at the things that we had been doing successfully for the past three years, no longer viable.  We saw that, and that’s what we had to react to.  Yes, it’s all of that.


People just aren’t drinking their Kool aid and buying the bullshit, more so nowadays when liberal dogmas are getting torn down around their ears everywhere. The emperor is naked and even the most rabid of SJW writers in Marvel’s lineup can’t deny it. It’s hard for anybody, much less the ever-increasing number of Red Pills to see output like the following as anything but ham-fisted SJW rubbish:

hxyqrzdThe only thing really accurate to real life about this picture is the constantly offended scowl of Miss Fempowered

p00l2gp
Tone deaf lazy writing that assumes your readership see these concepts in the same negative light tends to be bad for your bottom line.

czxcj3vwqam6uec
Subtle, that’s some high class prose making an eloquent argument for progressive dogma on gender right there

thisiswhatmarvelbelieves_eac15f_5879624The writers probably didn’t realise that most people ending up rooting for their strawmen caricatures of non-progressives.

6a0120a58aead7970c01b8d0d52b0b970c-800wiNice shoutout to feminism here, too bad feminists haven’t really been buying the books.

The is why any organisation with some semblance of common sense needs to be aware of the social justice snake oil salesmen offering to make some progressive deforms reforms around their business model. These people are ideologues, they are in the game to bend things to their twisted religion, not to help you.

Advertisements

Liberal Cross Dressing Own Goals

You can’t make this stuff up.

 

Maybe there’s a reason why there appears to be a lack of copypasta progressive memes from the west among progressives here of late, things are getting so unhinged over there that even SJWs here are thinking twice about trying this out.

Sometimes stuff like this makes me hope that one of our local liberals actually tries pull this off, it’s certainly popcorn worthy material. I do happen to know some self-professed male feminists that might actually take this seriously, one can hope.

The Myth of Gender Equality

This historical reality of course goes completely against the modern shibboleths of gender equality- men and women are equal in all respects, with women being more equal and superior whenever it is convenient to point out so. Modern progressiveness attempt to rewrite historical male achievements as the result of gendered oppression, that the unequal output of the genders was due to men oppressing women while reaping the benefits for themselves. The progressive claims that a new era is upon us, the matriarchy is around the corner.
But if you are a Red Pill social insurgent you know better of course. The achievements of modern civillisation are a birthright that came about from the results of the sacrifices of millions of men that went before them, a legacy that the modern progressive narrative attempts to erase in lieu for an ideological fantasy that tries to make men guilty for having achieved so much. The genders are not equal and barring extensive social engineering (which progressives are trying to do), this will highly unlikely to ever be the case.
Davidson Maene addresses the myth of gender equality quite comprehensively on quora, here it is reproduced in whole because you never know when the progressives agenda will attempt to censor brilliant answers like this:


If women are equal to men, why have men achieved so much more throughout history?
 

Because men and women are not equal.

The statement is merely another politically correct assumption devoid of evidence made because it feels good, and allows the world to seem prettier and simpler than it is. Men and women are too different for any concept of equality, inferiority or superiority to make any objective sense.

Such is the case with gender differences in intelligence, for example. Did you know that almost all IQ tests are “sex normalized”? Meaning that while constructing an intelligence test researchers toss aside any section on which either gender significantly outperforms the other, assuming a priori that the sexes are equal in intelligence. Essentially, any time observable reality challenges their assumption, they choose to disbelieve reality. Not necessarily due to incompetence or dishonesty, questioning egalitarian creed is dangerous.

Any scholar labelled a heretic is pursued and punished with the zeal typical of those who have convinced themselves beyond reason of their stand behind infallible truths, on the right side of history. Most researchers are likely afraid of the phenomenon dubbed The Watsoning, after the abrupt end suffered by the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel prize recipient James Watson, for daring to question egalitarian dogma. If someone like him can be sacrified for wrong-think, is there anyone safe to speak his mind? Is the loss of credibility being suffered by academics and mainstream journalists cause for surprise?

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”(Thomas Jefferson)

We now follow truth so long as she leads to our preferred dogma.

Alas, reality rarely conforms to dogma and the few remaining intelligence tests which are not “sex normalized” are no exception: in adulthood (given that boys mature slower than girls), men have an average IQ about 7 points higher, give or take 1-2 points. It is true that this difference vanishes once one controls for the positive correlation between height and intelligence within the same ethnic/racial group. But this approach does nothing to refute the existence of said difference and misses crucial biological facts such as men having larger brains on average (brain size being moderately correlated with intelligence), and other brain differences.

The dispersion effect still remains, meaning that men–relative to women–have a very uneven distribution; they cluster around the top and bottom of human intelligence with fewer men being just average. One interesting effect of this clustering is that males outnumber women the further high up one goes in intelligence: in the top 85% (IQ115+) there are 2 men per women and for genius level IQs (140+) 8 men per women.

If you feel the need to claim that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence, you should know that the statement is not only demonstrably false, but means almost nothing in practice, as I showed in the introduction to another answer. In the same answer, you can see that IQ (and by proxy intelligence) is the single best predictor in existence for a slew of positive life outcomes: virtually anything which you would dub an “achievement”, from financial, to artistic to scholastic and even human relationships. It is such an excellent predictor that it makes the effects of discrimination on pay gaps irrelevant.

The fact that there exists gender differences in IQ means that it is a literal impossibility for men and women to achieve any semblance of equality in those outcomes–given free and open competition–especially at the highest levels; ergo men have always and will always dominate the highest levels of human accomplishments.

Unless one is willing to engage in eugenics or genetics engineering.

Research on the genetic heritability of intelligence has consistently shown that the effects of parenting on intelligence are nil or nonexistent into adulthood. Intelligence could be up to 85% heritable into late adulthood, with the remaining variation almost exclusively due to the unique environment of a child (e.g not shared with siblings) and other unknown factors.. Supposedly, those are things such as peer groups, in utero etc…The only studies which find otherwise do not account for shared genes between parents and children; assuming–a priori–that genes have little to no effect on how intelligent people turn out to be. You can use this to have some fun: challenge any naysayer to bring you a single study which finds that someone’s intelligence can be significantly changed by upbringing–while controlling for genetic heritability and the full development of late adulthood. Watch them stutter.

We then know that the gender differences in intelligence are not a product of the patriarchy, assuming that it is a shared environment between siblings.

There are ways to create the illusion of equality and even superiority. A notable one lies in the realm of American education where women now–supposedly–outperform men. In school, it is easy to explain away by the fact that boys mature slower, and because mass education must by default cater to the average, are at a disadvantage given that their uneven distribution in intelligences means that fewer are close to average. Whenever education caters to the highest intelligence, the ratio of men to women predictably gets skewed.

This is even true at the highest levels, such as between different medical specialties.

I don’t doubt that these two facts put boys at a disadvantage, but that they tell the whole story; they have not been enough–historically–to cause boys to fall so far behind. Note that women also enjoy all kinds of preferential treatments from the first day of school to the highest levels of education, and into their careers, further accentuating the disadvantage. Even when the result is that women now outnumber men in universities, preferential treatment in men’s favor is almost never introduced. In the minuscule number of cases where it is, maybe involuntarily as a form of protocol, there is no shortage of people being upset. A sweet hypocrisy among egalitarians: boys more successful than girls–>Introduce preferential treatment to be fair; girls more successful than boys–>what’s wrong with the boys?

Natural girl behavior and learning styles (easily focused, non confrontational etc…) have become “gold standard” in schooling; which probably means that boys are not well emotionally integrated into the new system, and acting like boys always have is the quickest way to get an “expert” to label one’s behavior diseased–without performing any medical tests–and enjoy a sedating dose of Meth, sorry, Adderall for ADHD; or be punished. Lastly, public teaching has become dominated by women. I once read about an interesting study which suggested that female teachers grade boys more harshly for the same performance as girls, being far less tolerant of their failings, unless the boy behaved as girls do.

But I digress. Do you know the first rule of gender equality? To desire gender equality, one must first lose the worries of an empty stomach.

Perhaps you will have noticed that gender equality is only ever the rage in wealthy countries, after life has either become easy or full of first world problems. It’s also the only place where it is fashionable to push the mysogynist statement that all men, everywhere, for all of human history, have subjugated, domineered and oppressed women into doing their bidding. I can never figure out how anyone convinces themselves that women are so weak and helpless that men can get together and manage to pass and maintain social rules which are actively unwanted by the other half of the human species–never mind that all little boys are raised by, and usually adore, their mothers.

How do you justify the claim that men are not utterly and completely superior to women if they can pull that off? If physical violence were enough to maintain such dominions, I know a lot of people who would be slaves today.

The misogynist statement, in all its glory, is just another manifestation of the arrogance of fortunate people—looking from their Ivory Towers—unable to fathom that anyone could desire something else out of life.

Truthfully, the historic and traditional model of gender relations is a crude and unsophisticated case of bartering. A man goes out into the difficult world, in times and places where work is too harsh (physically or intellectually) for most women to successfully engage in. He works himself to death, is possibly eaten by a saber-tooth and takes the extra risks necessary for the extreme “achievements” you speak of to make himself a more attractive mate; and gathers as much in the way of resources as he can for a woman who will, in exchange, give him “ownership” over something he lacks but wants desperately: her reproductive capacity.

It’s why rape was considered an offense against the husband, for example, and daughters the property of their fathers. It was understood that he had “paid” the wife for the kids by pledging to work and provide for her throughout his life-and as he likely dies sooner–after, on his inheritance or connections.

It’s interesting that the oppression narrative is so popular. Is there a single historical case where the old model of gender relations survived after life got easier and women made it clear that they were no longer interested? If men are so good at oppressing women, why do they fail so easily–as soon as most women say no–as they have all over the West? Have Western men somehow lost their natural bent towards violent female oppression? However did that happen?

Not to mention all the data suggesting that liberated American women have never been less happy, aggressive or medicated while Saudi women–in full oppression–report strange levels of happiness. In an interesting twist, while American women have historically reported more happiness than men, the situation has reversed: young Western males–completely outside the patriarchy–have never been happier too, it seems, with their video games, sports and uncommitted sexual adventurism: who is liberated now! I would forgive you for reaching the erroneous, yet funny, conclusion that the only people happy in a patriarchy are women.

These happy young lads are ripe for a rude awakening: their ever so delightful, liberated women, are unfortunately in danger of dying out. Look at birthrates across western nations: all heading fast below replacement levels, if they have not done so already. Liberated women spend their time pursuing educational, professional and sexual achievements.

When done, they often find that it is too late for any significant investments in motherhood, should they wish to.

It is interesting to note the dysgenic effect on the populations: the most intelligent women are having fewer children, if at all, meaning that the heritable components of intelligence—which make up the vast majority of the attribute—are making themselves scarcer each generation. It makes the recorded decreasing reaction times (highly correlated with intelligence) among European children scarier, doesn’t it[1]? True, a nation can survive for a long time with an ever aging population and bellow replacement levels; but we must all eventually go full Japan, or be demographically replaced.

This is true within countries and without. In the USA, without constant immigration, traditional conservative White women, with their much higher birthrate, would essentially out-breed feminists (and everyone else really) in due time–demographically dominating the nation and making women’s liberation–and leftism–an uphill battle. In Europe, liberated German women are under threat of being replaced by less liberated, beautiful Burka wearing ladies.

This is true of non-patriarchal men, too. Happy western boys are under threat of being demographically displaced by stern, handsome, bearded patriarchs. I would forgive you for getting the weird idea that after defeating the patriarchy at home, liberated women have decided to import handsome foreign patriarchs, in their support of third world immigration. Funny, yes, but untrue. What is true is that the sexy bearded strangers will never abandon their religion and accept feminism as the one true faith. If they out-breed the happy western lads, liberated European ladies, as minorities in their own nations, will be wearing burkas next–as many of them did so long ago following violent invasions from the East.

Last, but not least, the greatest instrument of illusory gender equality is the Welfare State. Women are by far the primary consumers of public “services” and “jobs” provided by the state. Most of the expense in healthcare, food, housing and education is consumed by women. “Liberation” is an interesting choice of words given the fact that when you break down taxation by gender you realize that, among other groups, the welfare state essentially serves the role of transferring wealth from men to women. The average woman in Australia–for example–consumes 150,000 more in taxes than she contributes over her lifetime.

The wealth transfer from men to women is accentuated in the progressive model of taxation by its heavy reliance on the highest earners who (due to the link between high IQ and income) are predictably, unavoidably and overwhelmingly males; essentially forcing these men to takes on some or all of the traditional roles of the husband, for many women they don’t know and who have never done anything good for them: providing food, shelter, child education, protection, old age security etc….

Funny, isn’t it? How long do you think it takes welfare states to collapse with an ever aging and declining population though? Don’t sweat it, Japan will answer the question soon enough. Not to mention that western lads may be happy, but they don’t work as hard as their fathers to produce the kind of extra wealth necessary to sustain a progressive welfare state. Why should they? They are no longer socially pressured to shoulder the burden of a family; a single man needs very little wealth to support and entertain himself. They play, sleep around with sexually liberated women, do sports and almost nothing to make themselves “husband material”, as the Wall Street Journal once noted; going from woman to woman, beefing up their sex stats as much as possible without the pesky expectation of commitment which other men fall victim to. It is fun. And they are happier than they’ve ever been oppressing women.

“Where have all the ‘good’ men gone?” has become a rather common complaint though. Of course, one of the many things we must always assume despite a total and absolute lack of evidence—aside from gender equality— is that the “good” women are still here.


Hear hear.

The Manipulations of Chinese Privilege

puppet_original_9439

It has been a few years since Sangeetha started her Chinese Privilege gig, creating a meme that has managed to make significant headway into the ideological space of the English-educated and speaking crowd in Singapore.

While Sangeetha apparently hasn’t been able to make much money off her original subscription model of SJWism for her Singaporean Chinese Privilege blog, which apparently had only two subscribers after an extended run, she has moved out into farming Chinese Privilege by hawking it in educational institutions as well as shaking down guilty Chinese Allies for money or bashing whatever non-Southern Indian group that has earned her ire. The demands for money, resources and power can get quite comedic at times, and they make for good popcorn time material.

Whatever you may think of Sangeetha and her histrionics, you cannot deny that she has managed to create something that is expected to be around for quite a while which will be an issue that every Red Pill social insurgent will eventually have to tackle.

There are excellent takedowns of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege out there, and they provide deep analysis and deconstruction, showing why as a social theory to describe and approach race relations in Singapore it is not only highly suspect, but also dangerous for the social fabric of Singapore. These are works you should verse yourself in to better understand the issue.

But while I do think these works are great takedowns of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege, I do feel they lack something fundamental that has limited that effectiveness in changing opinions on the matter.

They are logical.

Yep that’s the problem, they are too logical.

The Chinese Privilege gig sells well to the progressive leftist crowd in Singapore not because it is a well-constructed thesis but because it is designed to push as many emotional buttons as possible among minorities and English-speaking Chinese Progressives in Singapore. As a work of manipulating emotions and recruiting minorities and liberals it has proven to be quite useful.

Logical takedowns of Sangeetha miss the manipulative nature of her ideology out entirely to focus on the rational merit of argument she is making, forgetting that Chinese Privilege sells not based on logic, but by provoking emotion.

While Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege may take the appearance of an academic exercise, it is just that, a facade.

Remember the whole Chinese Privilege meme is not meant to be logically consistent, but just appear plausibly enough so in order to stoke minority anger.

To understand how to best combat the damaging effects of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege narrative on the social fabric of Singapore one needs to understand that nature of how it persuades, provokes and spreads its influence. Logical takedowns generally neglect this, and end up serving merely as textbook answers that lack persuasive power.

So with that, Talon shall look at the foundations of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege memes in terms of how it is structured to persuade and manipulate.

Chinese Privilege has proven to be quite effective in manipulating people because it works on multiple levels. Let’s look at them now:

1) Manipulating Emotions- Casual Irritations as Systemic Racism

Understanding the meme of Chinese Privilege as one that generally spreads via an appeal to emotion becomes useful when you look beyond the academic writings that Sangeetha puts out to examine the secondary material in her inflammatory anti-Chinese hysterics on social media. These serve as an informal “real-world” expression of her ideology.

While these hysterics serve an to stoke emotions among her social circle in support of her social theories, and also provide us social insurgents some insight into her psyche, it is important to note that the “academic” side of Chinese Privilege gives justifications for Sangeetha acting in ways that could be quite reasonably considered racist.

For the people who have been harbouring large grudges against the Chinese majority in Singapore for various reasons, an academic justification allowing them to act out in is incredibly attractive. This is why a fair bit of people are willing to ignore the inconsistencies and sheer fabrications of fact even when they are glaringly obvious.

Sangeetha has managed to successfully up-sell latent casual racism in Singapore as systemic, exaggerating the actions of an insensitive minority of the Chinese as an institutional issue. On top of that, she has also redefined any inconvenience that minorities often face by virtue of being different from the rest as an issue of overt racism and discrimination, as opposed to finding alternative plausible explanations for that.

Remember under Chinese Privilege, any bad feels from the minority in regards to the majority is a result of Chinese racism.

Now casual racism is latent in all populations due to individual dispositions. This is unfortunate but it is another thing to claim it’s a systemic issue (ie. The system is actively out to get you.)

It is simple math in action. Even if all the races in Singapore had similar levels of casual racism, a member of the minority is simply way more likely to run into an idiot from the majority by virtue of the sheer numbers of them around. This does not mean that the majority as a group is out to get you, but that you are more likely to run into an idiot from it.

Sangeetha spins this statistical reality and distorts it to convince minorities that the Chinese as a class (if they aren’t self-identified allies on her bandwagon) are out to get them, and it works because most people can’t understand proportional representation.

To top this off, Sangeetha moves to reframe things that are due to simple demographic math in play as an example of deliberate systemic discrimination. The economies of scale that the Chinese can employ by virtue of being more numerous, such as being able to use Mandarin as a lingua franca for non-English speakers in employment are now redefined as racism. Advertisements targeted at the biggest demographic market is sold as discrimination against minorities (because targeted marketing ignoring is racist). So on so forth.

All unfortunate minor irritations (microaggressions) that minorities face are reframed as an example of a massive Chinese hegemonic conspiracy to disenfranchise minorities under the meme of Chinese Privilege.

It does not matter that there are alternative explanations that are more inane and don’t need to bring up accusations of racism, why? Because these explanations do not provide emotional relief in giving a bogeyman to bash.

A great part of the manipulative power Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege meme comes from the ability to continually redefine all minor irritations that minorities face as racism. While such “everything annoying is racism” sentiments are not new Sangeetha has managed to present an easily understood, applicable and seemingly academic method of codifying and concentrating such feelings under the banner of “Chinese Privilege”.

Know that the logic often does not matter, what matters is the emotional payoff an aggrieved person can get from putting a “Chinese Privilege!” stamp on anything about the Chinese that causes unhappy feelings.

2) Appealing to Rabbit Psychology 

Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege is also structured to appeal specifically the psychologies of the Rabbit people. If you don’t know what Rabbit means you can refer to the post with the grand summary on Wolves and Rabbits.

The core of Rabbit psychology is anti-competitive, seeking to eliminate all inequality of outcomes no matter the reason. Rabbits value models are also intrinsic, deeply focused on inherent rights, identities and status entitlements without the corresponding extrinsic justifications for such.

As such, claims that Singaporean Chinese are stealing resources and status from that should be rightfully accorded to minorities in Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege meme are deeply convincing to the Rabbit people that tend to populate the progressive demographic in Singapore.

Not that it does not matter if one can point out other more plausible reasons why there are different outcomes between the Chinese majority and the rest, Rabbit people are cognitively predisposed towards believing the narrative of a hegemonic racist Chinese conspiracy to oppress the rest because that is the quickest way to make the loudest noise and greatest push for resource redistribution.

In short, the radical claims of Sangeetha are specifically designed to best provoke Rabbit instincts among local progressives. This provocation is powerful enough progressives are compelled to move along with it, with the less-rabbity of those who attempt be the moderate voices largely ignored or even attacked outright.

Sangeetha has also hedged her bets well by setting up a local version of the progressive stack and making a hard sell for it in the opening arguments for her Chinese Privilege gig several years back, conveniently placing herself, an overweight, dark-skinned southern Indian woman sorely at the bottom of the stack in order to claim the right as progressive moral arbiter over everyone else. This has allowed her relatively free reign to control and redefine a great deal of discourse on race in progressive circles although there is some indication that she might be overreaching of late and alienating segments of her ilk higher up her stack.

To sum it up, Chinese Privilege has been rather convincing to anyone of a progressive disposition due to it being able to appeal well to various aspects of Rabbit psychology. This has allowed Chinese Privilege as a meme to entrench itself deeply within liberal circles in Singapore, of which uprooting it will probably require monumental effort from moderates.

Interestingly, the specific construction of Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege in order to appeal to Rabbit people can be seen via the contrast of reactions in minority individuals who have more Wolf dispositions- they tend to be less welcoming of Sangeetha’s assertions, and sometimes even outrightly hostile. The Wolf people rightfully reject all this race-baiting as nonsense, even when it promises them a moral high horse.

3) Memetic Hijack of Western Progressive Memes

On a technical level there is nothing terribly original about Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege- it’s original presentation was chunks of writings on White Privilege by Western Progressives taken wholesale with the racial terms swapped to turn White to Chinese, completely ignoring the differing cultural and historical contexts that exist.

Criticisms of Chinese Privilege as being plagiarised and shoehorned to fit a local perspective miss the point. Sangeetha doesn’t need Chinese Privilege to be original or even appropriate for application here as a cultural theory- all she needs is something that will catch the attention of local liberals already using all the buzzwords and rhetoric they are familiar with.

This outright appropriation of White Privilege serves several purposes: being a cookie-cutter term-swapped social theory Chinese Privilege can piggyback on established memes within the headspace of local progressives already set up by the White Privilege narrative, giving the same feel of authenticity and credibility White Privilege already has.

This is why the output of local progressives on Chinese and White privilege often appear indistinguishable, in their heads it is literally the same meme, just with different skin colours.

The power of this transposing effect was so much that several minorities I observed who drank Sangeetha’s cool aid started equating their situation in Singapore as equivalent to that of African Americans!

Far from being a weakness, the shameless plagiarisation of White Privilege in Chinese a Privilege is a rhetoric strength, a memetic hijack that has paid dividends for local race-baiters.

Remember, an argument does not need to be valid to be convincing, it can take on the guise of other accepted arguments in an act of rhetorical mimicry to slip in and set root.

4) Meeting Regressive Idealogical Demand

One also needs to examine and understand local idealogical market forces to understand how Chinese Privilege has obtained it’s manipulative power.

For a long time liberalism in Singapore has been largely tied to opposition politics with parties such as the SDP being the flag bearer for the further left of the spectrum. While civil society did exist and was ideologically leftist and probably more so, the bulk of minds in the populace on the left was occupied by local opposition politics.

Then came the the stunning opposition victories of 2011 which built up support for opposition politics to a frothing fever pitch (as a matter of fact opposition supporters often behaved in a manner similar to SJWs), with local liberals confident that GE 2015 would be another stunning success.

Then came the crushing defeats they routed and discredited the opposition as the ground swung to the PAP in 2015, a trend that has not let up in a series of losing streaks and misfortunes for local political parties.

This was however a boon for local Progressives as there was now a power vacuum in local leftism since the collapse of the political opposition. Where your idealistic young uni undergrads may once have seen opposition political activism in the years of 2011-2015 as an outlet to their inflated-self perception of revolutionary righteousness, the post 2015 environment only has SJWism for them to sign up for.

This has consequently led to a swell in the ranks of progressives in Singapore. This sets up a buyers market for any progressive idea that can be successfully localised- after all it’s more payoff to SJWing on stuff here as opposed to posting about social issues in America.

This demand for local progressive memes is a natural market for Sangeetha’s Chinese Privilege narrative and its various permutations. While basically repurposed White Privilege, Sangeetha has managed to hawk a meme that appears localised enough for local regressive to latch onto and propagate.

Conclusion and Initial Insurgent Strategy 

Chinese Privilege as a meme has proven to be effective in infiltrating and entrenching itself in the idealogical landscape of Singapore. While currently generally restricted to the English-educated and speaking liberal demographic one expects that barring the takeover of another more attractive progressive ideology it is expected to progress.

Chinese Privilege as a meme finds it’s success and appeal not because it is a valid work of academic social commentary, by manipulating several key centers of gravity in the idealogical battlefield to becoming rather convincing, they are:

1) Manipulating the emotions of aggrieved minorities by providing a plausible and codified belief system to concentrate, amplify and direct the negativity.

2) Manipulating the Rabbit psychology of liberals by structuring the rhetoric within Chinese Privilege to trigger instinctive Rabbit anti-competitiveness and aversion to differential outcomes, biasing such individuals towards be ideology.

3) Appropriating accepted memes such as White Privilege to take advantage of meme hijack in order to expedite acceptance of Chinese Privilege in the headspace of Progressives.

4) Meeting pent-up market demand for localised ideologies among local Progressives looking for a justification to conduct local activism.

These 4 main factors are why Chinese Privilege by Sangeetha as been relatively successful as a local progressive meme, which is at this point largely self-sustaining without much action on its originator.

Many traditional attempts to address Chinese Privilege are conducted on logical validity of the ideas themselves instead of understanding these 4 factors, and hence they fall short of even starting to dent it’s memetic appeal.

Red Pill social insurgents operating outside traditional paradigms of discourse need to realise that Chinese Privilege as a meme can only be defeated if these 4 centers of gravity are addressed. Fortunately as Red Pills, you are in possession of powerful knowledge that allows you to do just that. Talon will be addressing those in other posts on the matter.

You need to realise that the ultimate endgame of Chinese Privilege is not the elimination of racism from Singaporean society but rather the amplification of fault lines within the social fabric of Singapore. As a meme that finds its sustenance for existence by finding and defining racism in everything it will never stop until it’s acolytes are completely offended by everything, no matter how innocuous, with the races further from common ground as they have ever been.

We only need to look to America to see how badly this can turn out and mark my worlds that this is the outcome if the destructive meme of Chinese Privilege is allowed to run unchecked.

Fighting Progressives and Recruiting Insurgents

ab370a2b962d2168056dc8065268fa98

The Fire Rises

The Red Pill insurgency has been gaining momentum in the past few years, but 2016 was the year were it really went mainstream to have a visible impact in the public ideological battlefield.

Previously restricted to just isolated groups of Red Pill men trading ideas on the forgotten corners of the internet, Red Pill truths are now for the first time, publicly presented in active opposition to the prevailing Progressive narrative while leftists all stand slack-jawed in disbelief as their most powerful rhetorical weapons proved to be all but useless.

But this is just the first step- it’s time for the insurgency to make the next stamp by ramping up recruitment in order to gain in strategic effectiveness. The time has never been more ripe that to make a big move as it is now when leftists are reeling back from the heavy body blows at their recent defeats.

Singapore fortunately has still been largely spared by Progressive creep into it’s ideological mainstream but make no mistake- the enemy here is trying hard, throwing every Progressive ideal wholesale they can rip off from the west to make something stick.

And some has, if the rise of Singaporean identity politics in memes like Chinese Privilege has risen in popularity among the english-educated demographics. A quick look around the Singaporean internetz will quickly find several wannabe Progressives preaching leftist dogma wholesale, working hard to push the Progressive agenda into the social fabric of Singapore.

The fight is on, and the field is open for battle.

Remember that local Progressives are by and large not intellectually committed to the on-paper ideas that they preach. For many of them taking these ideological stances is a often a statement of fashion, a lifestyle accessory that allows them to signal their virtue to others in their social circle as well as think of themselves as superior to the unwashed masses.

This lack of adherence to any intellectual standards and belief in their own superiority means that your Progressive will not be honest, neither will they act in good faith when engaging others outside of their dogma. SJWs always lie, and they will never play fair. Get this in your head, they are the enemy, they are not content to leave you be, and they wish nothing more than for the destruction of your way of life for their own amusement and social proof. 

Fighting Progressives 

In any case Progressives ideas are destructive to a civillisation and needs to be combated and defeated by local Red Pill insurgents on the battlefield of ideas. To do so you need to team up with fellow Red Pills and move to engage Progressives where you see them. Remember you will be at a disadvantage as the Progressives will be wielding powerful rhetorical weapons designed to discredit you as a racist, sexist, homophobe and all sorts of deplorable villainy.

Do not back down, realise that they are attempting to define the frame of the conversation in their favour and don’t play ball. The frame of what is considered moral in Singapore has not shifted to the leftist side, but they are winning as the population shifts to be more r-selected and has never experienced the full horrors of the progressive narrative turning their societies into a madhouse. Unlike the West where decades of progressive ideas has generated fatigue and disillusionment, you have to fight uphill against the natural inclinations of the population to entertain leftist ideas.

So you have to be smart and nimble, pick your attacks where they can cause maximum damage and do not bother with being bogged down in unproductive ones. Remember a 100 post back and forth exchange just to win an argument that nobody has the time for is useless versus a single tersely worded linguistic killshot that completely shatters the Progressive psyche for all to see. Reserve your detailed debates only with people who are honestly trying to explore the issues and learn something.

Keep your true stances and intentions unclear and mysterious to the enemy and always force them to qualify themselves and their ideas. Remember in Singapore the Red Pill social insurgency is still relatively unknown so make use of this to catch your enemy off-guard.

Remember to keep your debates short, impressive and always put your opponents on the defensive by making them defend themselves. Hit them hard and fade away before they can react, prevent them from gaining footholds in the ideological battlefield by crushing their attempts to define the frame of the debate on their terms. Dominate them so totally that their attempts to use their most powerful accusatory weapons of racism/sexism/whateverism look more like desperate last-ditch plays that impress exactly no one. Watch them shrink away as they realise they bit off more than they could chew.

Recruiting Insurgents

The insurgency must grow as the fire rises, never has the time been more ripe than to start unplugging your fellow men, with their minds being primed by what has happened in America with Trump getting elected and smashing the leftist narrative of cultural invulnerability.

Note that while your Blue pill friends are conditioned to automatically express a revulsion towards all things Trump, the seed of an idea has been planted in their heads just by witnessing all that has happened. They had a glimpse of how a Red Pill social insurgency can defeat the Leftist narrative in a surprise upset. While many cognitive dissonance filters are working to keep the Blue Pill strongly entrenched, these happenings have created leverage in their minds that you can work on.

And if you know how to act on them, you can start to slowly sway your Blue Pill towards a path that takes them to the Rabbit Hole and into the Red. Personally I have seen this happen as I engaged with some Blue Pill friends who were looking for some explanation on what had happened beyond the cut and dried leftist ideas that they are starting to suspect. They didn’t go fully Red Pill of course- unplugging is a long process, but they were far less sympathetic with the Progressive narrative when I was done with them.

Remember the idea is not just to win people entirely over to your side, we are not Progressives who demand unity of thought within dogma and employ brain washing and indoctrination techniques to enforce behaviour. Going Red Pill is a process of self-realisation, and you can only get the most dedicated and motivated insurgents that will carry on the fight when they have picked up the mantle of saving civillisation from Progressive rot on their own volition.

Take your time with unplugging people slowly, it will take patience, but the results are worth it. Meanwhile, Progressives are running around desperately trying to beat people into their mould with threats of labelling them as social outcasts. Compared to them, you will seem like the paragon of reason, a person who is truly interested in making the world a better place instead of just seeming to do so for social proofs.

There are those who are already pretty much Red Pill in outlook- they just haven’t learnt the terms. They people are ripe for recruitment into the social insurgency if they haven’t already been unknowingly waging one themselves. You just need to convince them of the danger of Progressive infiltration in soceity and they will join you. Keep an eye out for these people for they are valuable and an easy way to quickly build your ranks. A good deal of my best fellow insurgents came from this demographic, so place this as a top priority as much as you can. Always be on the lookout for fellow Red Pills. 

And there are Blue Pills who are on the cusp of taking the Red due to personal life crises. The Blue Pill outlook has been seriously threatened by something happening to them that has led them to realise that their fantastical Blue Pill beliefs are inadequate. This is most often seen in a breakup where a guy was dumped for being too beta. Start opening their eyes up slowly to the Red Pill by feeding them small doses of it. Before long you will have your own insurgents.

In any case it’s not just enough to attack Progressives effectively, you need to build your own tribe as well. This is the only way you can win in the long term.

The fire rises.

 

Insurgents vs.The Weakening Liberal Narrative

maxresdefault

The stunning defeats the mainstream progressive narrative suffered recently offer a good study in how a smaller, but more nimble and motivated force can punch way above it’s weight while facing a larger and more powerful foe.

On paper it shouldn’t even be a contest, over the past decades since winning the culture war progressives have controlled mainstream dialogue on what is considered moral and managed to emplaced the all-powerful memes of “racism/sexism/whateverism” in popular consciousness to serve as gatekeepers to their narrative. Run afoul of liberal dogma and see how quickly these terms will be used on you to bring you to heel.

On top of that, the progressive movement has enjoyed virtually uncontested support in mainstream media coverage, being able to bring the heavy hand of the media and associated lynch mobs upon any who threaten the modern progressive narrative with heresy.

While most of this has been happening in the West, even Singapore is not immune to the rise of such regressive culture, having seen several incidents in which local regressives have mobilised in an attempt to bring Western-style liberal outrage mobs to respond to any breach of the liberal narrative. While Singapore may not be fully aware of it, the frame of public consciousness, especially among the english-educated crowd is shifting to the liberal narrative, slowing uprooting the traditional Singaporean mindset as the various memes of regressivism sink their roots.

In any case, in most parts of the first-world in the West liberals control the frame. They are the new moral majority have have been since the won the culture wars of the 60s. They hold many advantages over other idealogical narratives and have the means to ruthlessly crush opposing ideas without much effort.

So how they they suffer so many stunning defeats of late? How did the cultural juggernauts of progressivism, feminism and social justice packing all the advantages lose out to an unorganised rabble of deplorables?

That’s because they’ve gotten fat, complacent, and are fighting yesterday’s war.

Your modern progressive is a descendent of the original liberals that fought and won the culture wars against the traditional right. As much as the modern progressive/feminist/SJW claims to be fighting, they actually function more like occupation troops seeking to police and entrench their narrative in a cultural battlefield that they have already won. The various strategies, tactics, and weapons were designed to be effective against traditional conservatives and people who have accepted their framing of social issues.

By and large they are playing by the rules of the game that have more or less been accepted by everyone in the mainstream on both left and right since the 60s- diversity is good, racism and sexism are bad, equality is an unquestionable good, and all the various conventions that have come to make up what is considered the modern progressive dogma.

Traditional conservatives, foolishly accepting the progressive framing of morality, are constantly on the defensive will never be able to out left the left and are stuck trying to explain why their position is more moral in a time when everybody is shifting left from them. This is why traditional mainstream conservatives cannot, and will not win the culture war.

It is in such an environment where liberals, now victorious as the new mainstream moral majority have made themselves into the cultural establishment. It is in this cultural establishment that modern progressives, feminists and SJWs patrol and carry out their various forms of cultural policing and politicking for higher positions in the liberal hierarchy. The traditional right is not a threat because the methods to contain them are established.

But the victory of the left sowed the seeds of the Red Pill movement that would eventually burst out into a fully-fledged social insurgency that would prove to be immune to most of the traditional weapons that the left could bring to bear in the battlefield of ideas.

This social insurgency was unlike what the progressive establishment was used to fighting- there were no central figures to take down in a classic decapitation strike and what few figures that appeared to be important were just riding the wave of the insurgency as opposed to guiding it. While there were many differing strands of ideology within the insurgency, several contradictory at times they were all united and focused in their common goal of taking down the left.

The traditional tools of suppressing ideological opponents by drawing from the traditional rhetorical toolbox of calling them racists and sexists didn’t work, drawing dismissive derision instead of capitulation.

This social insurgency was also fast and nimble, being able to quickly react to changing circumstances and put out memes and counter-memes much faster than what their mainstream opponents could do while the progressives were at a loss to finding something that could work.

The energy was infectious, as it gained momentum more people joined the insurgency or supported it quietly from the sidelines, seeing it as something that could finally deal damage against the progressive juggernaut that previously seemed untouchable.

While all this was happening the progressive response was confused and muddled, unsure of how to respond to a new and deadly threat that was unlike anything they had seen before. Worse, the politicking in their own ranks prevented them from forming a unified response with a good deal of energy being wasted on infighting.

The progressives were fighting yesterday’s war while the insurgency is fighting from the future. The progressive narrative was maintained by vested interests in existing structures by virtue of being the establishment and hence intrinsically tied to defending them while the insurgency was free to move and strike and will.

While the progressives are spread out defending a massive memeplex of ideas in all areas of mainstream public thought the insurgents could focus on individual areas and attack them in strength, cycling through many different methods of assault while possessing few apparent weaknesses that their opponents can exploit.

All this wasn’t apparent at first, as in their arrogance progressives have assumed themselves to be the endpoint of history and did not foresee a effective large-scale challenge to their stranglehold on mainstream ideological space. It wasn’t until a series of stunning defeats to the liberal narrative did they realise that the barbarians are sacking Rome.

It is in this battlefield that you, the social insurgent find yourself now. You are part of a global reactionary movement to save your culture against the extinction of regressive progressivism that has made several key victories recently. While these victories are encouraging more work still needs to be done.

The progressive narrative has been dealt several heavy blows recently but it remains dangerous. It is now fully aware of the threat the social insurgency poses and more likely that not will become more effective in tackling the insurgency. There is no time to rest and every social insurgent needs to move fast.

The new culture wars have started, and things are about to get real interesting in the coming years.

 

Identity Politics, For Singapore?

aaeaaqaaaaaaaadraaaajdkyzmm0m2q0ltvlmtctngu3ni1ioda3ltnhzdizzwqym2vhza

It is no secret that progressives are neck-deep in identity politics. Basically all of the multi-headed Hydra of idealogical movements in modern regressive liberalism draw their rationale from the fount of identity politics. White privilege, sexism, transphobia, fat acceptance and what have you not all find their basis and reason for being there.

While us in the Reactionary Red Pill Social Insurgency reject modern regressive liberalism and many of it’s values outright, it would behoove one as a social insurgent to better understand the certain premises that the progressives use to construct their world views in order to better wage effective memetic warfare.

The truth of the matter is identity politics is ultimately divisive as the inherent nature of sorting issues out based on what people are will end up splitting them into different groups more often than not at odds.

For example, the idea of white privilege as SJWs and progressives present it necessarily single out Whites as a group from the rest, regardless of if individuals within the group truly qualify as privileged.

While the goals of white privilege as a social theory is to examine and remove racial inequity (by taking privilege away from whites), in practice as a memeplex white privilege often ends up being about the irrevocable eternal villianhood of the Caucasian as the last thing those with vested interests in peddling the theory would want is for it to actually achieve it’s stated goals and put the progressives who have benefited from it out of business.

Progressive identity politics is inherently divisive and self-sustaining with no endgame in sight. It will make a lot of noise about wanting to remove inequity but isn’t interested in true equality and will seek to continually find ever more extreme justifications to keep the memeplex running, even if it is to the point of ludicrosity.

Because it was never about equality in the first place. It is about defining an in-group of desirables and an out-group to demonise, mining social resources by attempting to arm-twist concessions out of the out-group until something gives.

This is why you don’t try to please SJWs, it is never enough. It will never be enough.

 

Now the human being is a pack animal and identity politics is not just unique to regressive progressivism. Humans have long used group selection narratives in order to strengthen social bonds, which obviously served us well in survival. Not all forms of group identification are bad or unhealthy. The incohesive group will be defeated by another that can work as a team.

But SJW identity politics is that it is inherently dyscivic. It sets up and amplifies divisions within a civillisation that are detrimental to it’s long-term survival. It is a parasitic form of group-selection that largely leeches from civillisation by setting up an aggrieved group with a chip off the shoulder demanding more from the rest while giving nothing in return. It encourages an aggrieved group to seperate their goals from the combined interests of the civillisation hosting it.

The question is do we want this here in Singapore?

Singapore has a couple of mainstream narratives running that help to define an identity for it in order for the various groups within it to function in a pro-social and harmonious manner. Our nation after all is a constructed one that rose from a unique set of circumstances that required a deliberate effort in nation building.

The mainstream Singaporean narrative asserts that the main races (seperate but equal), work together as Singaporeans first for the progress and benefit of all. Unlike the “melting pot” model of multiculturalism in the west, Singapore’s approach towards it has always been to carefully tread the lines between various groups while giving case-by-case concessions to keep everybody happy while working together towards one general vision, which generally involves peace and prosperity for all.

One could criticise all this as an artificial and constructed identity and they might have a point. But the nobody can deny that it works- the result are clear for all to see especially if you compare it to the muddled results of identity politics up north.

Despite being constructed, the mainstream Singapore model of identity politics worked because people were willing to overlook several inconvenient inconsistencies in the narratives for the big-picture view of peace and prosperity for all. The stakes were high after all as the survival of the island republic was at stake during the early decades of independence.Everybody was in the same boat together, even if we didn’t see eye-to-eye on everything.

At the end of the day, identity only matters because we identify by them. One could see the various narratives of group identity as collective hallucinations. Some collective hallucinations are more useful than others in helping us to survive. We knew that the collective hallucination of identifying as Singaporeans was more useful to our survival during the turbulent years of nation building instead of segregated collective hallucinations of race and religion creating groups constantly at odds. The pioneer generation acted accordingly and choose their brand of identity politics to go by, that of a collective, united Singapore and built up something quite unique in the world.

But things are different now that Singapore has achieved resource security. Group survival is less of an issue now and in such an easy environment, the rationale of needing to have a collective Singaporean identity is less pressing.

There is more advantage now in splitting, not uniting. Now that things are easy, the focus is not on bringing Singapore forward together as a nation but rather how various groups have been, justifiably or not, been perceived to be shortchanged by others.

It is in this environment where we start to see SJW identity politics start to rise. SJW identity politics is not rational, it has no desire to be. It relies on generating negative emotions, dividing people, putting them at odds, and creating a zero sum game where one must prevail over the other.


Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 5.37.54 pm


 

There are many ways to respond to this of course. One could attempt to dump all forms of identity politics but this is unlikely given that we are tribal animals.

What is more likely to happen is that the out-group, which is usually the majority considered the most privileged will silently tolerate the increasing attacks on them via SJW identity politics until they decide to play the same game and lash back, which is what we are seeing this with the rise of White Nationalism with the alt-right in America right now. As opposed to capitulating to the ever-increasing demonisation of Whites under identity politics, an increasing number of disgrunted white folks are deciding to play the same game instead, but on their terms.

The eventual endgame of SJW identity politics if allowed to run unchecked, is racial and religious conflict.

I’ve observed the steady drumbeat of race baiters in Singapore attempt to import the American culture wars here, slowly tearing at the weakening national narratives that had kept our nation united and moving forward till now. They think that their anger and disgruntlement is righteous, and are trying to make as many people in their demarcated in-group disgruntled and unhappy as possible. They look at the identity politics in America and wish it here, delusionally seeing themselves as central figures in a dawning social movement.

They do not know it, but they are playing with fire.

 

 

Pivot Point

gallery-1462471207-iwo-jima

Many great wars in history have had pivotal moments in which one side lost the strategic initiative in a decisive battle and never gained it back, being forced to be on the defensive until the final, inevitable defeat.

The war may still be far from over following the loss of the decisive battle and the side that lost the battle may still be a formidable opponent with many advantages, but for all purposes the cause of the entire war had already been decided in that crucial battle where the.

For the Germans in World War 2 it was the Battle of Stalingrad that finally checked their advances on the Eastern Front and forced them into retreat till the inevitable end of the Third Reich several years later. For the Japanese it was the Battle of Midway in which they lost a huge portion of their carrier fleet and was no longer able to maintain their strategic initiative in the Pacific Theatre. Before those battles the outcome of the war was still a toss-up, but the slow slide to defeat became inevitable following the loss of the strategic initiative.

Feminism and the various ideologies espoused by the memeplex of cultural marxism have all but won the culture wars using the left as it’s trojan horse, slowly making headway into all aspects of modern culture to erode the bulwark of traditional values designed to keep civillisation healthy and thriving.

The slide of societal values left was slow at first, but soon kicked into full gear and more institutions fell under the thrall of cultural marxism, even conservatives, the self-styled protector of traditional values, often found themselves ideologically cuckolded and helping to propagate the meme virus of cultural marxism.

And so we find ourselves today on the brink of modern civillisation, at a point where societal values have gotten so distorted by the reality-denying ideologies of cultural marxism that the societies in which it had been allowed to run amok have all but lost the will to survive and thrive.

The cultural marxist-meme viruses represented by feminism and social justice movements now act early, infecting children and youth as they are indoctrinated in educational institutions that have been all but taken over by CM ideologues. The aggressive and hostile reactions by offence culture has all but suppressed open speech on any opposing views. Modern feminism preaches a one-sided, misandric and dyscivic ideology of gender relations, destroying harmonious gender-relations vital for the functioning and propagation of soceity and replacing it with an antagonistic, gynocentric system filled with “empowered” women aging out of their biological prime and emasculated, listless, directionless Blue Pill beta men.

While some thinkers in the Manosphere think that cultural marxism is part of a Globalist Conspiracy by the elite to smash the notion of nationalism and enact a New World Order I am somewhat more skeptical about these conspiracy theories. Sometimes a bad idea could just get popular as developed civillisation shifts to an resource-abundant r-selected environment, even if it is ultimately unsustainable.

In any case, the damage caused by Cultural Marxism is undeniable and massive, and it’s dominance over many aspects of modern life is indisputable. They won the culture wars.

But that was when the insurgency started.

It wasn’t much at first, just a bunch of frustrated men trying to apply their objective observations on human nature to get quick lays. But the hedonist is often the most honest seeker of truth, and going down that rabbit hole of taking the Red Pill ended up giving them a whole new perspective to view things by. With these new perspectives, these men shifted out from just trying to be successful with women and started applying their Red Pill awareness to the culture around them, realising just how broken things had gotten.

While these Red Pill men are hardly monolithic as a group and focused on many different issues, they all recognised Cultural Marxism at the main threat to their civillisation and way of life. As more men got chewed up by the system their ranks started to swell, and what was just a bunch of men trying to best make their way by in a system with the cards stacked against them had now become a full-fledged countercultural insurgency taking on the occupying force of Cultural Marxism.

The enemy was not prepared for this new challenge, having being used to waging pitched battles to unseat conventionally organised incumbent idealogical opponents . This new social insurgency was nebulous, had no central leadership, no obvious organisations or assets to attack and were immune to the usual methods of labelling and shaming used to silence opponents. Worse, they were more than capable of using the very same tactics they had used on the traditional right.

But while all this was happening, the excesses of Cultural Marxism in attempting to impose it’s ideology over everyone’s way of life had led to a rise of disenfranchised, silent classes in many of the societies in which it had taken root. They provided welcoming demographics for the insurgency to thrive and recruit more members.

Despite all this was happening, the enemy had had grown complacent and put too much trust into the strength of their dominant narrative to suppress the insurgency from breaking out into full force. Despite having the system on their side, the general quality of their idealogical foot soldiers also tended to be on the poor side as the bars for entry to Cultural Marxism were very low and relied more on being able to recite dogma than actually being useful.

They did not realise just how strategic control over social narratives were slipping from their hands and into that of the social insurgents until it was too late.

In a series of stunning defeats in which the reactionary insurgent forces won upsets over the incumbent Cultural Marxists, the left was sent reeling in shock as they suddenly found themselves defeated in decisive battles that they expected to have utterly crushed the insurgency.

Brexit, the American Presidential Elections. All these were supposed to be the final victory for them where nationalism and the patriarchy was finally put down for good.

Instead the rag tag basket of deplorables somehow pulled off a series of wins.

And the liberals are sent reeling, trying to make sense of their sudden defeats and finding some way to explain them.

The funniest thing about all this renewed vigour to “fight on” by many liberals and their social activists to start a revolution in the light of their defeats is that they don’t realise that a real revolution had started, they had missed the boat, and they now weren’t invited.

Pop culture liberals, feminists and SJWs had always been manufacturing a victim narrative in order to grievance monger and justify their various inane revolutions, but and are now left completely out at sea and flabbergasted when a demographic of insurgents with REAL grievances and plenty of motivation to carry out a social insurgency had brought a real battle to them.

They have been caught entirely flat-footed, and hit with several sucker punches.

Cultural Marxism is not dead by a long shot, in fact it has now started to wake up to the insurgency and take it seriously. Future battles will be a lot harder than before when the insurgency could sneak in shots under the complacency of their enemies.

But everyone has now seen that the seemingly invulnerable dragon of Cultural Marxism can bleed.

And if it bleeds we can kill it.

They have lost the strategic initiative.

The social insurgents of the manosphere have been spending the past few years preparing for open battle, and in the wake of these recent momentous victories that have set a new normal.

The time is now.

We Wuz Kingz

crt6yibwwaedrkz

It’s okay to be ethnocentric.

It’s okay to think that your own group is special, or exceptional, or whatever.

In-group preference is how societies and civillisations survive.

The difference is in how far you take these sentiments, and if you can actually back up those claims of exceptionality.

One of the more amusing (and sad) things to come out of the whole social justice gig is progressively-sanctioned ethnocentrism, of which Afrocentric historical revisionism is the Trope Namer for this post title.

Basically, a bunch of Afrocentric race activists thought that peddling fringe revisionist theories on how ancient Egypt was actually a Black civilisation (we wuz kings an shiet) man, or that the first president was actually Black, so on and so forth. On the weirder side of things we get pseudoscientific melanin theory in which the pigment is given mystical properties imbuing those who have more of it with superhuman powers, and guess which race has the most melanin?

1009567_466620713430150_1768455297_o

So on so forth, you can’t make all this up. This isn’t just restricted to Blacks, if you read around the ramblings of various anti-racism/sexism/whateverism warriors on the interwebz you will get a fair bit of them flirting with fringe pseudoscientific historically revisionist theories that promise some mind-blowing revelation of just how awesome their own group was.

This isn’t just restricted to race, you get the same nonsense along gender, nationality and whatever lines humans choose to define themselves by.

We get some of this locally as well, with the gift-that-keeps giving Sangeetha flirting a little with the idea that Tamils were responsible for Korean civilisation, making them the “right” fair-skinned asians in her jaundiced eye. Fellow Indians trying to correct her get the SJW beatdown because it is the narrative that matters, not the facts.

You also get a fair bit of the same nonsense with feminism, with feminists choosing to blow up the achievements of notable women in history when on closer examination, the awesomeness often does not check out or the story had been severely embellished. Just check out the gutter on stuff like “A Mighty Girl” FaceBook pages.

The thing about all mental wanking about how great one’s own personal in-group is that it often stops one from achieving true greatness. It is far easier to think back about the glory days, real or imagined instead of realising the work that currently needs to be done, and this is especially true of groups who realise that they don’t really have a lot to crow about in comparison to others.

Do I find it annoying when White people boast about the achievements of Western/European culture? Sometimes but the fact is the proof is in the pudding and available for all to see. They don’t need to split hairs over what’s the definition of success and civilisational achievement because they have gone out there and achieved a lot, both with the good and the bad.

You can blame White folks for doing some pretty terrible things in their climb to the top, but you can’t say they haven’t achieved anything, which is why the boasting while annoying, isn’t entirely without merit.

The nonsense starts when other cultures and groups who have not reached the same level of achievement nevertheless see the need to invent a narrative that allows them to feel good about themselves in terms of achievement. Basically a societal wide chanting of “I am special, I am special”. Peddling pseudoscientific theories and revisionist history is the illogical conclusion of this need to be regarded as special without needing to prove it. If there is nothing of value to be found, then something of value needs to be invented.

At the end of it, groups who invest in these collective fictions will only suffer when they waste time and energy believing they are special instead of actually going out to do useful things. This belief in unjustified self-value will most certainly lead to widespread Dunning-Kruger in the group to it’s detriment.

Do I think Asian achievements have not been fully recognised by the West?  Yep. Do I think the Asian civillisations, especially the Chinese and Japanese have achieved a lot? Yep.

But the difference between me and the “We Wuz Kingz” folk is that I live in the now, and it is what you do now and here that matters. Value has to be proven and worked for, not invented via nonsense and demanding that people see you as special.

Bill Nye The Red Pill Guy

Budding Red Pill knowledge on the manosphere is to behavioural science what bit like alchemy is to chemistry, informal theories are developed from informal observations of human behaviour until the science catches up with either a confirmation or refutation.

More often than not nowadays, science tends to come up with a confirmation of the principles that have already been discovered by Red Pill men, as Bill Nye here demonstrates by describing already well-known concepts in the manosphere in his thesis on the Science of Twerking.

Unlike the magical thinking dogmas of progressive idealogical systems Red Pill knowledge and neomasculinity is reality-based, which is why science confirms it so often.