If the Democrats were smart they’d co-promote their convention with Marvel. After all, they share the same audience. Take a look around and you’d see so many fat, sweaty women along with their low-t lady boys that you could easily believe you were at a gross comic book convention.
Girls with blue hair and the horny geeks who love them.
The Democrats come off like the victim of a bullying long-con where the cool kids managed to convince the nerds that they were seriously hip, and then can sit back and with the losers strut around like imbeciles.
Obama’s real legacy isn’t as America’s first black president, but it’s first geek in power, and now the loser’s club finally has some confidence.
There was never another time historically where having a conversation about the basic nature of reality- what we encounter in our lived experiences- would have made much sense. Rather, it would have come off as insanity, but here we are in our horrifying alternate-1985 wasteland engaged in a perpetual argument over what should be the prologue of the story.
Reality should be our starting point, the toolkit and blueprint for human greatness, not a prolonged debate.
But what the fuck is reality? Tough to know in a world of misinformation and unreality, served by people raised on the same deliberate bullshit. Modernity is a nice sounding hypothesis playing out in real time, but without an end-date to honestly access the damn thing. The people who drew it up are long dead, and what’s left are loudmouth idiots and unreality profiteers.
The dynamic between Black Lives Matter and the police mimic Batman and the Joker in “The Dark Knight” (2008). By their own premise, Black Lives Matter purports that poor black people are perpetually naughty children who inevitably deal with the police. These naughty children have no standard of behavior to meet nor rules to abide by- they are inherently naughty. The police, who make their careers handling violence, have rules and standards to meet, and even when the situation is crazier than usual, if those rules are broken it’s cause for outrage and demands.
One side of the equation is given a ready-made excuse for lacking accountability, the other side is burdened with limitless accountability. One side is expected to be unpredictable while the other is held to the expectation of perfection.
The game plan is always the same. It goes exactly like this: the Progressive will cite hypocrisy as the greatest possible sin; in particular, hypocrisy in the face of lofty moral ambition (Progressive mortal sin). They then hijack and redefine an opposing group’s beliefs under the guise of faux-concern. When genuine members of that group don’t live up to this new redefinition of their mission and intentions, the Progressive shames members of the group with accusations of hypocrisy.
This is the Progressive go-to. It doesn’t change because it doesn’t need to change; it almost always seems to work.
So the faux-concerned, intellectually superior Progressive will explain to the Christian that Christianity is defined as limitless charity and altruism (specifically altruism to those not part of your own community/tribe/nationality), and when the Christian fails to live up to this impossible standard, the Progressive will claim that “Christianity is about hypocrisy,” and then pats herself on the back as a job well-done.
The United States is founded on the idea that there is an inherent justice in rebelling against a seemingly unjust system. If Public Education is primarily teaching ideology, the most important initial lesson taught is The Revolutionary War. The rebellious colonies were inherently justified in their rebellion. Their assessment of Great Britain as greatly unjust must always be taken at face-value; the American colonies were victims and victims never lie.
There is a eerily lyrical quality to the two planets destroyed in George Lucas’s “Star Wars” (1977). The first was used as the only piece of evidence to justify the Empire’s malicious reputation; the fact that Alderaan was a peaceful planet mattered not to General Tarkin- the destruction of Alderaan was considered necessary for the greater good, the restoration of order, for the larger galaxy. The only morality, for General Tarkin, was civilization. It should go without saying that the decision to destroy Alderaan must have been a difficult one, but the true essence of leadership lies in the difficult and unpopular decisions the role necessitates. It seems childish to think the Empire enjoyed destruction as an end in itself- they weren’t a maniacal serial killer, they were a fascist dictatorship. There is a chaos to genocide, they desired predictability.
There is something beautifully Fascist about the White House soaked in the gay rainbow. As a fan of Fascist imagery, and Fascism in general, I
can’t help but admire this.
Fascism is about strength and congruence; uncompromising and unapologetic. Fascism is not about voice, Fascism is about hierarchy and dominance. A dominant leader should lead to feelings of comfort and safety in those led; a well-kept pet will respect the dominance of their master, a good wife will find comfort in the leadership of her husband.
However, a productive Fascist state needs a benevolent Fascist leader. Historically this has been a real bitch to hammer down. So while I admire President Obama’s force and congruence here, I question his intent and the long-term results of such intent.
I graduated college with a Bachelors degree having concentrated my area of study in both English Literature and Philosophy, dealt in equal parts. Only now, as an adult looking back, can I understand the depth at which these areas are diametrically opposed.
At its best, an authentic study in Philosophy is the quest for Truth- deep Truth, big picture Truth, real talk Truth; sadly the modern education system makes this pursuit increasingly difficult, but the beauty of Philosophy is that it’s teaching the student how to think, not exactly what to think. The student can then use these tools for whatever Truth they wish to seek.
Duty is not something a person will choose when given the option to make their own decisions; by-definition “duty” is an imposition and a responsibility- duty is about limiting personal freedom for the best interest of civilization.
A dutiful citizen is necessary for a functional civilization- this includes duty to family, duty to community, and duty to country. Although duty isn’t necessarily enjoyable by the modern understanding of the term- flashing lights and lines of cocaine- it must be prioritized above personal pleasure. Duty must be foremost, and whatever enjoyment gleaned from life beyond duty becomes secondary.
Like getting all your homework done on a Friday night before hunkering down and playing Ikari Warriors; a life well-lived, and a little bit of fun too.
The sexy appearance of modernity has made the dutiful life seem boring by comparison. The modern Progressive will view humility as a kind of self-imposed naivety– the dutiful experience has become synonymous with missing out on life; life as defined by escalating consumption.
When Dorothy clicks her heels at the end of The Wizard of Oz (1939) repeating “there’s no place like home,”she is acknowledging that happiness isn’t something that must be found in extreme individualism and a highly stimulating landscape; happiness isn’t about consumption. There is beauty in humility.
Dorothy learns the value in calm stability, and a life with family.
Thematically,The Wizard of Ozwould be lost on the modern Progressive, confused as to why Dorothy didn’t stay in Oz, find a solid drug dealer, and a few dozen Alpha males to party with.
The very same modern Progressive is staunchly in favor of abortion.
The most efficient way of understanding the truth about Female Nature is doing a quick reversal of the kind of Feminist theory that has become mainstream thought over the last half-century.
Women do, in-fact, need men; womanhood is defined through manhood.
If we understand the form of Masculinity as a man’s “efficiency in acquiring power, his comfort in holding power, and his ability to maintain power,” we can understand the Form of Femininity as a woman’s comfort in submitting to power.
The mainstream media and feminists alike understand that people are inherently unsympathetic to men- in particular, men who have unauthorized opinions– and to easily sway a story in the favor of good Hollywood versus bad opinionated men, all they really need to say is “men’s rights activist.” Anything further is academic- the term immediately invalidates any argument presented.
The mainstream narrative will always deny that feminism has become institutionalized. If the narrative is that men are privileged, of course men who are looking to defend themselves as men in a system they see as bias against them would be viewed unsympathetically; as hateful, greedy, misogynist losers.
The system makes it clear that women are the oppressed class and men are the privileged class, always and forever. Women need our resources and support while men only need restraint and emasculation.
Make no mistake that this mindset is pervasive and trickles down to how our Education system is structured.