Editor’s Note: Last Redoubt concludes his series on Lies and Consequences (all of them are linked below in the post).
In wrapping up this set of posts, we’ve had several big events happen recently. One, we’ve gone through another round of purges, with Molyneaux being kicked off of youtube – you can find him on Bitchute here – Gab being blacklisted by Visa, and Crypto Fasion being kicked off of their shopping cart.
Going after people via the banks and payment processors was, of course, the next big move. It also is a nail in the coffin for any kind of high-trust society, because if you are blocked from opening or running a credit card for a business, from running shopping carts, or from the public square, you are effectively crippled. But businesses cannot afford to have the rug yanked out from under them over perfectly legal behavior because someone got a false-religious moral bee in their bonnet over you being “wrong”, even as they profess to not believe in right or wrong.
Of course, they are going after you under false, heads-I-win-tails-you-lose principles, much like I noted in the first post in this series. They are gaslighting you. Take a look at the following as seen on YouTube:
See anything there that isn’t just one side of a supposed conversation? You only get to say what they tell you you should think. It’s been a bitter joke for years that anytime the race hucksters and left want to hector us about race issues, they say “It’s time we had a conversation.” An actual conversation, of course, requires both sides. They don’t want to listen to any side but theirs. Our feelings, wants, needs, and priorities aren’t to be factored in, to be negotiated, or in any way have their wants compromised.
None of it, of course, is falsifiable. The typical argument pattern of your average lefty, especially in these race-related issues, is that of the kafkatrap – archived locally but originally courtesy of Eric Raymond. One of the sterling examples of this is a book cropping up at the top of Kindle and corporate recommended reading lists for “better understanding how to be a good ally”, or similar tripe, is “White Fragility”.
Note – you can be an ally. Allies, of course, can be discarded or abandoned when no longer useful, unlike friends.
Why is it a Kafkatrap? Because the entire premise is that everything about white culture is racist, and the very act of defending yourself proves you’re just being defensive…. about being racist. You see, white people are so fragile that they cannot bear the thought that the very system that they were raised in was racist from the ground up, and that even if they were never, individually racist, that they were racist simply by participating in the system. So any objections are just proof that they don’t get it yet that they are racist.
As ESR notes on Kafkatraps – this is intellectually dishonest, and there is no need to even give the pretense of debate. Call a liar a liar.
Tiabbi, admittedly a squishy moderate, eviscerates the book better than I could (and the comments are rife with examples of utterly dishonest projection).
DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.
If your category is “white,” bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (“Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness”), which naturally means “a positive white identity is an impossible goal.”
DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except “strive to be less white.” To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo’s lecturing – what she describes as “leaving the stress-inducing situation” – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.
DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like “AMAZING!” and “SAD!” that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.
Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a world where only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. “To be less white is to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort of white people,” or “Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness, describes whiteness as multidimensional…”
It’s a scam to provide just enough rhetorical justification to call you guilty.
Full-throated approval, even if you are being beaten as you voice it, only makes you a (temporarily “good”) ally. Anything else is proof that you are racist – you just may not be willing to admit it yet.
God forbid you defend yourself, because per the powers-that-be, the black person could not possibly have initiated a conflict or put someone in fear of their life. There are more than enough examples of either white antifa types or black rioters surrounding and attacking cars, dragging people out of them. Mobs are attacking ambulance/EMS personnel as they are responding to a scene to save lives. In a spectacular case of gaslighting, a woman was ripped out of her car and beaten, people smashing in the roof, and the mayor had the effrontery to claim no such thing happened. Yes, after supposedly reviewing the video.
Antifa will lie. The screenshots below are about the two black teens shot in Seattle near the CHAZ/CHOP/CHUD:
Be prepared to defend yourself in the full knowledge that you will suffer the legal consequences of being attacked. Take a look at this example – a husband and wife who have now been charged:
Supposedly, the pregnant wife bumped into the daughter (holding the phone). The scene starts from there, with the mother berating the pregnant lady. While the pregnant wife and the husband do respond a few times, somewhat less and less pleasantly and more stressed, they nevertheless consistently try to disengage, get in the car, and attempt to back out. The entire time they are called racist and ignorant – as it is enough to do so. Just call them racist and ignorant, people will believe there’s cause.
What gives the game away, that this is about humilating white folk who better damn well sit still and take their scolding is that, as the car starts to back out, the mom walks back and attempts to step behind the moving vehicle to block it.
This is the point where the pregnant wife steps out of the car with a gun, screaming “get the fuck away,” obviously no longer calmly collected.
Snark about pregnancy hormones aside, several things are important here:
a) As I mentioned, they consistently tried to disengage.
b) The mom consistently tried to instigate a violent reaction
c) The mom would not drop it – she was determined to have a fight, to the point of blocking the car in so they couldn’t get away.
d) The wife, utterly freaked out because she’s being trapped by a large, angry woman who’s determined to make a scene, doesn’t shoot anyone.
I already gave away who got charged. The husband also got fired. I’m sure it was calling the mother’s behavior disgusting that clinched it, because from what I can see on the video, other than not kneeling to be berated by his “betters”, he only helped his wife into the car and tried to back out before being blocked.
Even facing these odds, defend yourself when you are in the morally right. The DAs that have been elected, often surfing a wave of Soros money, will go after you ust as much as they’ll leave antifa and black rioters alone, but don’t make it easy.
As the Didact reminds us – talk-talk is nice and all, but non-violence only works on those who are fundamentally decent.
Tangentially – searching unsplash for stock photography using “blm” yields a page of nothing but peaceful protestors. Even using “blm riot” yields, well down the page, a few shots of cops using tear gas, and an antifa guy using pepper spray. If we are to believe our stock photography overlords, violent commies and blacks don’t exist.
