, , , , , , , , , , ,

Because one thing will always chain into another thing with me, and get me thinking about stuff, I decided I was going throw some musing up that I was having. The title comes from a phrase I’ve heard from various places, though I think it did come from a movie (i forget the name, but wouldn’t mind seeing it), where someone says “If the left is so damn smart, how come they lose so goddamned always?”

Ironically, I think I’ve figured it out.

See it’s not that the political left is inherently dumb. There are some interesting ideas that come from the Left that probably do bear looking at. But even the “dumb” ones do explain the present “lose so goddamned always” that is happening recently in the political sphere (not that I’m unhappy about it, at all).

I stated previously that thanks to my series of posts on Nazis and why people might want to join them based on either “positives” in position or a somewhat factual basis in their philosophy and actions at the time (if not the extent they went too), I was called a Nazi and an anti-semite. There was also the bit that “we shouldn’t explain the positives about Nazis, we should just punch them in the face till they go away forever.”

So what got me started down this merry train of thoughts that has dirtied my fluffy tail (as it were), was the charge of “anti-semitism.” I.e. that I was racist against Jewish people.

Now, most people on the political center and the political right would hold that Racism is just prejudice/hatred towards a race of people regardless of skin color. It’s the hatred that makes it racism. For the political Left/Progressive left, however, Racism = Power + Prejudice. I.e. only those with power and prejudice can be racist. If you don’t have power, you can still have prejudice, but it absolutely is not racism, at least according to them.

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the Progressive Left is right and Racism = Power + Privilege. If we take this formula as true…it is impossible for me to be an anti-semite/racist towards Jews. Why?

Because as I showed in my second “free shrugs and nazis” post…Jews are incredibly privileged. 44% of the Jewish community is part of the Wealthiest 1% of Americans. That’s a hell of a lot of privilege and power. But we can break it down further with Wikipedia.

  1. 44% of Jews report family incomes of over $100k, as opposed to 19% of all Americans
  2. 59% of Jews have university/post grad degree vs 27% of Americans
  3. 31% of Jews hold Graduate degrees vs 11% of Americans
  4. 61% of Jews work as “white collar professionals” vs 46% of Americans
  5. Median household income of Americans $99,500 vs Jewish median income of $443,000 dollars.
  6. Median income of a Jewish person is $97-98,000, which is double the median income of an American.

And to further “drive the point home” the percentages of student populations that are Jewish at American university both public and private.

And no, your eyes do not deceive you, the percentage of student population that is Jewish at Brandeis University is indeed 56%. Despite the fact that Jews as 2% of the US Population.

And that’s not even getting into actual positions of power per demographic. That’s just economics and colleges.

By any stretch of the imagination or by factual analysis of evidence, Jews are far, far more “privileged” than whites. Which means, by Progressive logic and standards, it is impossible for a white person to be racist towards Jews because white people have no power or privilege when compared to Jewish people.

Now, even by the standards of the political right (where racism just is racial based hatred) I’m not anti-semitic because I don’t hate Jews because of their race. I don’t even hate people who happen to be Jewish. Honestly I don’t care much about the entire situation beyond a few notes that the odds are a bit skewed. But by the Leftist definition it is impossible for me to be racist towards Jews.

So what does this have to do with “leftists losing” you ask? It’s simple, despite functioning under their own definition of what racism is…it was politically left people who insisted I was anti-semitic. They violated their own “law” as it were.

It would be like a physicist insisting that Newton’s Second Law (Force = Mass x Acceleration) is true and can be relied on as a fundamental law of the universe. They then prove it by showing that a motorcycle slamming into a brick wall at 70mph has X amount of Force. And then they insist that it’s impossible for a car slamming into a brick wall at 50mph to have any force because the car is “not a motorcycle.”

You can’t “win” using a formula if half the time you insist the formula doesn’t even exist.

And that’s for one of the “dumb” ideas. What about one of the “smart” ideas? Well, let’s take Islam for example. The Political Left insists that we should not be violent or prejudiced towards the Muslim community, because that will cause them to “radicalize.” We’re all familiar with it, as it’s meme’d: “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, but being mean to Muslims will cause terrorism.”

Okay, I’ll admit, the whole denial/cause thing is kinda dumb, but let’s just take the application. Being mean to people will cause them to become violent, but if we’re nice to people then they will not become violent. Which, okay, I’ll give you. That is not, in and of itself, terrible logic. I’m pretty sure I’ve used that logic myself.

But even when it comes to this “good” logic…the left can’t keep to it. What was the literal first thing when the political “right” stood up to the anti-fa riots in Berkley? Or Hell, before that when Trump was getting elected?

“Let’s punch Nazis in the Face!”

Okay, so going with the assumption that the human race is in fact one species and not a bunch of different species (yes, humans being different species is apparently a thing believed by people of all races. I was surprised by this), that means that all humans should function on the same psychology. So, if being mean/violent towards Person A would cause them to radicalize and become violent, the logically being mean/violent to Person B would also cause them to radicalize and become violent.

See the pattern?

And, what was the first thing that happened when the Left started going “Punch Nazis!” Well…while they weren’t “nazis” a lot of people certainly “radicalized” and started to meet violence with violence. Ironically, proving the Leftists right in their “being mean will only radicalize people” theory.

It was a completely predictable series of events by the left’s own logic. And yet, despite this being a fundamental point of belief for the political left they failed to understand what was going to happen.

Another example is “Identity.” The political left has repeatedly insisted over the last couple decades that “A persons Races, Sex, Gender, etc, are fundamental to their identity, and the erasure of any of these is an act of violence towards said person.” All well and good, I can even agree to this as a concept. If we agree that such things are indeed important, than it is important to respect these things.

Yet, time and again we see this rule violated by the political left in both the real world and in fictional ones. The fictional ones are usually the most obvious, so I’ll go with examples from there.

The Gunslinger from the Dark Tower series is an expy of Clint Eastwood from his western film, i.e. White. He’s being plaid by Idris Elba, a black man. Heimdall in Thor is a Norse God (White), again plaid by Elba (black). Flash Thompson from Spiderman (White), in Homecoming (Indian). MJ in spiderman (white), Homecoming (black, though they have publicly walked it back to her not being MJ after much rage). The Doctor from Doctor who, for example, as been a male for about 60 years, is now going to be a woman (with much protests that said woman was not black or transgender [though when you think about it, the character would be transgender since they’ve been male for 2000 years in universe]). The lawyer from the Netflix series (whose name escapes me) was a Male in the comics, and was even written as a man in the series, but at the last moment they switched to an Actress instead and changed virtually nothing about the writing (proving to actually be one of the most complex characters in that series, oddly enough).

Now, to be fair, such acts also happen to “diversity” characters who are “white washed” so to speak. The Ancient One from Dr. Strange went from Asian male to Celtic Woman. There’s more than that, but I can’t remember off hand.

So, race/sex/gender are important to identity, their erasure is an act of violence, and yet repeatedly such acts of violence are committed against people’s identity.  Under the philosophical law of identity being sacred and erasure being violence, one would think that either this would not be done at all, or at least it would be protested in equal measure as unacceptable by the political left.

Except, clearly, it is not. The practice is generally judged as “violence” or “Acceptable” base on the race/gender/sex of the character in question. This bleeds over in real life as well, where say the BBC can sack a longtime and popular host on the basis of him being a “white male” with virtually no protest, but if you axe say a “black woman” from such a position there would be instantaneous outrage equal to if Jupiter was chucking thunderbolts at Titans.

A pretty good example of how this can backfire is the previous presidential election. Hillary Clinton fully recognized and supported the identities of blacks/women/lgbt people, but virtually erased all mention of the troubles of white people, men, and heterosexuals. This erasure cost her critical mid-west states that have voted blue for generations, and ultimately cost her the election.

Which actually ties in well with the next thing

Diversity is the Progressive idea that all peoples and cultures are equally valuable and should be preserved as rigorously as possible. They are, each and everyone, absolutely unique and their loss would be a terrible crime for and to humanity. Additionally, any form of “cultural theft/appropriation” is a crime of horrific proportions.

While I will quibble about cultural theft/appropriation being that bad, I do agree that all cultures are unique, should be preserved to the best of our abilities, and that their loss would be a terrible crime. Most Folkish Pagan religions hold to a similar view.

And yet, despite preaching for decades the virtues of Diversity, the political left applies it so unevenly as to be not just counter productive, but to the point of racial/cultural extermination. So unfairly and unevenly is the idea of diversity practiced that is has created a justification (and in the minds of many necessity) of what is called “white supremacy.” Of course, this “white supremacy” in reality is nothing more than the verboten defense of a cultures that by rights should have been recognized and equally defended in the name of “diversity.”

If laws, legal or social are to mean anything, they must be applied as evenly to the populace as “natural laws” are applied evenly to the functions of the universe. In some regards, the political left is smart enough to “realize” “universal laws” and yet they lose because they fail to utilize their “discoveries” in an even and equal manner. And while I’m not going to say 90% of the political left’s loses are because of this…a significant number are based on this failure of obeying “leftist universal laws” as you could call them.

The openly biased and discriminatory application of their own “laws” costs both the political left, and all those who interact with them more and more dearly each day. While the truth (or morality) of the Left’s social laws is debatable, more would be accomplished for the good if their “laws” were enforced equally, and many social problems that have arisen based on this uneven application could have easily been avoided.

The primary reason this doesn’t happen, of course, could be tossed up to human nature. Humans constantly feel that they are good and those opposing them are bad. And, often enough, this justifies actions openly admitted as bad in and of themselves, but considered acceptable because of who the action is being done to. Actions that violate the very “laws” their universe that they have made.

You cannot declare that “Racism = Power + Prejudice” and then ignore  Power when inconvenient. You cannot declare that “Violence causes Radicalization” and then insist violence is the answer to radicalization. You cannot declare that “Identity is Sacred” and then erase identities. You cannot declare that “All Cultures should be Preserved” and then help to destroy and erase cultures.

You cannot make a law, and then ignore it. Not if you wish to retain your power, authority, or place in society. And the consequences of doing so have been shown historically time and again.



Hela Bless