Too true to bear.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter…

Taki’s Magazine is one of the most politically incorrect publications in the media space. This commentary https://www.takimag.com/article/our-privileged-oppressed/ is thoroughly reprehensible…..to those who hate the truth! If that one didn’t do you in, this one will. https://www.takimag.com/article/when-the-rainbow-goes-over-the-cliff/

In fact, just read the posts, use the links. From here on in my post, I present excerpts from Takimag.com. Check it out. If you find yourself offended at Taki writers, or me for promoting them, let me offer an apology in advance: TOUGH! Did I spell that right?

BLACK WOMAN SAYS WHITE PEOPLE “OWN TIME” Brittney Cooper is “an associate professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies,” which sounds about as intellectually challenging as swatting at tsetse flies. She also says that the concept of time has “a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.” That sucks! You know who doesn’t have a concept of time? The Australian aborigines, and look how well that worked out for them. Maybe white people are onto something with this whole “time” thing.

MIDDLE EASTERNERS RESENT BEING CALLED WHITE To be fair for once in our friggin’ lives, we’ve never considered Middle Easterners to be white. Anyone with a functional pair of peepers knows that they tend to range in hue from mocha cappuccino to the color of goat urine. Americans of Middle Eastern origin are starting to also notice that they aren’t white, because they aren’t getting any of the handouts that nonwhites are entitled to in this rampagingly white-supremacist country. Sarah Shabbar, whose ancestors were Jordanian, says that she didn’t have a big deal with being considered white until she got to college and realize that there was no special free money set aside for Arabs.

ANDREW YANG SELF CONSCIOUS ABOUT HIS WANG Last year in his book The War on Normal People,Yang recalled being taunted by non-Asian bullies in school about the astronomically high statistical possibility that he was packing a tampon between his legs. He wondered? There’s only one way to find out. We thought Asians were good with things such as numbers and measurements.

BLACKS-ONLY POLITICAL EVENT IN GEORGIABecause we are a nation driven apart by division and separatism and difference and disunity, we all need to come together as one, and in order to achieve this, we need to keep all the white people out, and if you don’t understand this, we’re going to report you to Facebook for being a white separatist. Last week in the beautiful but crime-ridden coastal Georgia town of Savannah, a black church held a black meeting with black politicians and posted a “Black press only” sign on their welcoming doors of inclusion. According to the black people who attended, there was talk of inclusion and unity, but if you have a problem with excluding white people, you don’t realize that this country guarantees freedom of association for everyone but white people, you whitey-white bigot

NON-OBESE MEN URGED TO CUDDLE WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT ACHIEVING ERECTIONS In order for men to shed their toxic veneer of masculinity like a bunch of snakes molting their skin in a serpentine circle jerk, they must come together and cuddle one another so long as they don’t have back problems, aren’t fat, and promise that they won’t get boners in the process. This is the goal of the Men’s Therapeutic Cuddle Group, some squirrelly weekly get-together in suburban Philly designed “to provide a safe, structured, and platonic environment for men to experience ‘the three As’: Acceptance, Affirmation and Affection.” As long as you have a penis, they don’t care if you’re black, white, yellow, brown, or teal, but they warn that “men with back or knee injuries, or those suffering from obesity may find it difficult to fully participate.” The group insists that all cuddling be nonsexual in nature and demands that all men shower before attending. However, they note that “most men experience some level or arousal during cuddling. This is completely normal…we’re all guys. We just ignore it. There is no shame here!” That’s precisely the problem—there is no shame there. There should be.

VIBRANT IMMIGRANT SUSPECTED OF DISMEMBERING A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE Because diversity is our strength and because illiterate Nigerian savages need to be imported to do the dismembering that Italians won’t do, it is no surprise that a Nigerian drug dealer with the hyper-ironic name of Innocent Oseghale is currently on trial for the murder of an 18-year-old Italian girl whom he also allegedly dismembered—while she was alive.According to a witness in Mr. Innocent’s trial, the accused began stabbing indigenous Italian Pamela Mastropietro immediately after raping her and then, assuming she was dead, he left the scene to summon help in dismembering her. After they returned and started severing her foot, she allegedly cried out for help, spurring the vibrant migrants to stab her until she shut up forever. If this is progress, we’d rather live in the Stone Age. People seemed more considerate back then.

Heaven help the guy who dares to say this.

Join us in discontent…

I like what Dennis Prager writes normally, and after reading the following, I am in awe of his courage. Do I agree with him? I do agree that women who do women’s marches are malcontents, and have little to complain about as a whole, but as for their individual lives, those may be a mess and the marching is a poor substitute for fixing their own situations? Jordan Peterson has said that psychology research shows that people are far more likely to view their group (whom they identify with) as oppressed than themselves as individuals. In fact, many individuals who have never been personally oppressed or persecuted still believe their group to be oppressed, or so they say. Peterson thinks this an odd phenomenon. I think it’s perfectly sensible. It is so much easier and feels so much more righteous to march and protest on behalf of others than to fix your own situation!

Am I saying that the majority of the women who march and protest in favor of women’s rights are really unhappy about their own circumstances? Yes, that’s what I believe, even though I don’t know those women personally. I have known a few a long time ago and it was that way. Whose decision was it whom to marry, whether to marry, where to work, what occupation to pursue? It was generally that of the individual. Oh yeah, not always, but in America, mostly. So, Dennis Prager started his essay by saying…

But a big and troubling thought hit me while reading the book. In the 56 years since “The Feminine Mystique” was published, every complaint Friedan made regarding the situation of the American woman has been addressed. Few American women are forced into “housewifery.” The few women who choose to place marriage and home over career have truly chosen to do so; it is the rare young woman for whom marriage and family are greater goals than a successful career. Nor do women any longer go from high school to the wedding chapel. They go from high school to college and often graduate school. In fact, far more women go to college than men.

Yet, if you were to listen to many American women today, you would think nothing has improved. Every women’s group and millions of individual women say women are “oppressed” despite the fact that virtually nothing remains of the “feminine mystique” described by Friedan. Feminist groups describe the state of American women in dire terms. Young middle-class and upper-class women, many attending the most expensive universities — paid for by their parents — are among the greatest malcontents in American life. In fact, women today, including young women, who lead lives the very opposite of those described in “The Feminine Mystique,” are about twice as likely to be depressed as men. And that statistic is true for women across all economic, racial and ethnic groups.

So, then, what was my big and troubling thought? If women are as likely — perhaps more likely — to complain about being oppressed today when they aren’t oppressed as they did when they were oppressed, and if women today are nearly twice as likely as men to be depressed, and if women at elite colleges — where they are pampered and more assured a financially successful future than most men living now or who lived in the past — are particularly angry and malcontented, simple logic suggests two choices: Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents. Given that the reality is that American women — especially the ones who do the most complaining — are not oppressed, we are left to conclude that the female of the human species may tend toward being malcontents. The simple-minded will respond to this exactly as they were indoctrinated to respond — not by asking, “Is it true?” but by accusing the person who offers this suggestion of sexism and misogyny.

So, allow me to respond in advance: This is no more an attack on women than describing men’s nature as aggressive is an attack on men. Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society — a society that has rejected wisdom — in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?

He then puts it in a larger context, trying to proxy feminine thinking with left and masculine thinking with right. However, that’s a reversal of the traditional hemispheric theory. The theory is that people are either left-brained or right-brained, meaning that one side of their brain is dominant. If you’re mostly analytical and methodical in your thinking, you’re said to be left-brained. If you tend to be more creative or artistic, you’re thought to be right-brained. This theory is based on the fact that the brain’s two hemispheres function differently. This first came to light in the 1960s, thanks to the research of psychobiologist and Nobel Prize winner Roger W. Sperry. The left brain is more verbal, analytical, and orderly than the right brain. It’s sometimes called the digital brain. It’s better at things like reading, writing, and computations. However, a 2013 study utilizing MRI technology kind of debunked the theory. Still, Prager’s comments about the political left and right are, I think, accurate.

Though life in America is a blessing for the vast majority of its citizens, the left constantly complains about America. Indeed, the better America gets, the louder the left’s complaints about America — about its racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, xenophobia, inequality, systemic bias, etc. The right, on the other hand, regards life’s difficulties as inherent to life, not inherent to America’s flaws, and doesn’t much complain. Like men, conservatives complain less than liberals. And just as male and female feminists demand that American men complain more — that their lack of complaining is a form of “toxic masculinity” — the American left demands that Americans complain more. As I’ve said many times, what does a white heterosexual male know of these things? I don’t know about you, but if that’s me, then quite a lot.


Jordan Peterson on socialism. My comments in bold.

Caution, very long and complex. One of the most fascinating things I read by JP is: “People report far more prejudice against their group than against themselves. That’s quite an interesting phenomenon, as far as I’m concerned. There’s a tendency for people to exaggerate the degree to which the group they belong to is currently suffering from generalized oppression. They’ve been relatively free of it themselves.” I think that applies to the women’s marches in particular, as I said in the previous post. Does it also apply to present day racism? If I were darker skinned, or knew enough“people of color” personally to hear about their own experience, I might be in a position to say.

“I also think that fairness is an absolutely essential, and perceived fairness is an absolutely essential component of peace. Because people can tolerate inequality, so to speak, or even revel in it, if they believe that the unequal outcome is deserved. Look at how people respond to sports heroes. … No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, even though he or she is paid much better and attracts the lion’s share of the attention, hopefully not in a narcissistic manner. People can celebrate success, but they do have to believe that the game is fair. And the game needs to be fair because otherwise the hierarchy becomes tyrannical.” We all know deep down, though we might not think about it in these terms, that when you work for someone else, you are paid no more than it costs to replace you. The more you value you create, the harder you are to replace, therefore the more you should get paid. If not, there’s other options.

“I think part of it is that things are changing so fast that none of us can keep up. It’s hard to keep the story updated. I had no idea, for example, that most of the world’s economic news and even a substantial proportion of its ecological news was positive until I started to work on a U.N. committee about five years ago on sustainable economic development. And who would be driving the communication of such things? Especially given two other things. One is that human beings are tilted toward negative emotion in terms of its potency. For example, people … are much less happy to lose $5 than they are happy to gain $5. We’re loss averse. We’re more sensitive to negative emotion than we are to positive emotion, and there’s a reason for that. The reason is, you can only be so happy but you can be dead and right. And there can be a lot of misery on the way to that end, so we’re tilted to protect ourselves and that makes us more interested, in some sense, and more easily captivated by the negative than by the positive. That’s a hard bias to fight.” The field of Behavioral Finance was established on the psychological research of Kahnemann and Tversky, who discovered that loss aversion was a stronger emotion than desire for gain, but they didn’t deal with reasons, only observable phenomena. I disagree with Peterson’s reason here. I believe that regret for a loss, the negative emotion, lasts much longer than excitement for the gain. Excitement lasts for minutes or hours, but regret can last for many people the rest of their lives.

“And then when you also take into account … and I think this is something that worth seriously considering because the other thing we don’t understand is the technological revolution that’s occurring in every form of media. No one understands it. But one of the consequences is that the mainstream media, so to speak, is increasingly desperate for attention. They exist in a shrinking market with shrinking margins, all of the leading newspapers and magazines are feeling the pinch. Television is dead because YouTube has everything the television has, and then an incredible array of additional features. And radio is being replaced by podcasts, so it’s a very unstable time for the mainstream media and what would you expect them to do except to do whatever they can to attract attention in whatever manner they can manage? Violent crime is down but reporting of violent crime is way up. The people who are most likely to believe that it’s on the increase are also those who are least likely to be affected by it because to be a victim of a violent crime, it helps to drink too much, but it also helps a lot to be young and male. And those aren’t the people who are particularly afraid of violent crime even though they’re the ones most likely to be implicated in it.” That is true, but doesn’t explain why the majority of people seem to be more interested in reading about the negative rather than the positive. I come across many articles in sports publications headlined “the worst busts ever” and “the best players ever drafted.” I never read the busts articles but love the bests articles. Perhaps a part of this is, I am not jealous of the achievements of others nor do I feel better about myself when I read about the failures of others. I never indulge in regret.

“So there’s technological reasons for our concentration on the negative and they’re complex. It’s not easy to figure out how to combat the spiral of outrage and attention. I don’t see any real evidence that your society is more polarized, generally speaking, than it has been many times in the past. And I think the next scenario is a good example. If you think about it, merely statistically, you’ve been split 50/50, Republican/Democrat, for what? Five elections now. And it’s almost perfect 50/50 split, that really hasn’t changed. Trump, of course, is somewhat of a wild card and so that complicates things. But I don’t think it changes the underlying dynamic.” If you think our recent political debates are rancorous, you haven’t read much history. Plenty of duels to the death over politics were occasioned by vicious personal slurs in the past, both here and abroad.

“What I do think has arisen again—because it’s made itself manifest many times in the last 100 years—is the rise of this group identity-associated, quasi-marxist viewpoint with this additional toxic mixture and paradoxical mixture of postmodernism. And that means that they’re skeptical about the idea that large uniting narratives are valid. And it’s a huge problem, that claim, because the first question is, “How big does the narrative have to be before it’s a meta narrative?” Is the narrative that holds your family together falsehood? Is the narrative that holds your community together a falsehood? How big does it have to be before it becomes a falsehood? We’re fundamentally narrative creatures, that’s how our brains are organized. And to deny the validity of large-scale narratives is to deny the validity of the manner in which we organize our psyches, and that’s unbelievably destabilizing for people.” It is.

First of all, the simplest story in some sense is that I’m at point A, and I’m going to point B. That’s not as simple a story as it might sound because it implies that you are somewhere and that you know it, you have a representation of it geographically, let’s say, socially, psychologically, you have some sense of who you are. But more importantly, you have some sense of who you are transforming yourself into. So that gives you a direction. The direction gives you meaning. The hope and the meaning that people thrive on is the observation that they’re moving toward something worthwhile and that might be individually, although it really can’t be because we live in collectives. But it should be collective and that isn’t optional. If you don’t have a goal, a transcendent goal, say something that’s beyond you, then you don’t have any positive emotion and that’s not good because you have plenty of negative emotion. God created us to be worshipers; that is, meaning-making beings.

“Suffering is a form of meaning and you can try to argue yourself out of that with your nihilistic rationalizations, but that is not going to work. You need a transcendent goal in order to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and the destruction of the narratives that guide us individually, physiologically, and that also unite us socially, familiarly and socially. It’s an absolute catastrophe. The question then is, why is it being undertaken? That’s a complex question and I don’t know if we can even discuss that. That has something to do with this unholy marriage of the postmodern nihilism with this Marxist utopian notion, which makes no sense at all because the postmodernists are skeptical of metanarratives, yet Marxism is a grant meta-narrative.

“It’s a catastrophe to take young people in their formative years, when they’re trying to catalyze their adult identity, and to tear the substructure out from underneath them and leave them bereaved. I do believe that that’s what the universities—on the humanities end, and to some degree on the social science end—fundamentally manage to achieve. I don’t admire that. I think there’s something deeply sadistic about that. There’s something deeply anti-human about that, and it presents itself in the guise of moral virtue, which makes it even worse. Well, that’s why people don’t like me. Being disliked by the right people is a badge of honor.

It’s said in Genesis that every person is made in the image of God. And there’s an idea in Genesis that God is that which confronts the chaos of potential with truth and courage. That’s the logos. If we’re made in the image of God, that’s us. That’s what we do, we confront the potential of chaos, the future, the unformed future. We confront that consciously, and we decide with every ethical choice we make what kind of world we’re going to bring into being. We transform that potential into actuality. And we do that as a consequence of our ethical decisions.Well, if you conduct yourself with the courage that enables you to accept your vulnerability—which is no trivial matter—and if you’re truthful, then what you bring out of potential is what’s good.” And that sets the world right. And that’s up to us. To me, that’s the great story of the West. That’s why we regard ourselves as sovereign individuals of value, is that’s what we are. And we need to know that to take ourselves seriously and to act properly in the world. That’s what I said in the biblical lectures in many hours. And that’s what’s made them popular because people, at the level of the soul, people know these things to be true.