With the reelection of Donald Trump, Leftists took the realization Queen Kamala the Appointed wasn’t going to be President as well as you’d expect: by being bat-shit insane. I mean, even worse than they normally are, which is saying a lot from an ideological group that thinks trans women can get pregnant.
Well, some of those trans men may have to pick up the slack, thanks to a movement Leftists women adopted in the wake of Trump’s victory. It’s called the 4B movement, and it’s…well, we’ll get into that after the break.
4B movement
What the Left thinks it means – women protesting the patriarchy by cutting off any relationship or sexual ties with men
What it really means – Leftist women co-opting a movement because Orange Man Bad
The origins of 4B has its roots in a South Korean feminist movement in the mid-to-late-2010s. The tenets of 4B are as follows:
no sex with men
no giving birth
no dating men
no marriage with men
In other words, my dating history prior to meeting my wife.
The driving force behind 4B is a desire to reject the “normal” family dynamic and the male-dominated culture that perpetuates it. Given the culture in South Korea and the challenges women face as a result of it, there is a legitimate need for such a movement, even if I may not align with them politically. I firmly believe there are things women can do as well as a man, if not better, and that women should be given the chance to succeed or fail on their merits.
So, naturally, Leftist women in America have to go and fuck it up.
Before they could get warmed up for their epic meltdowns, Leftist women were looking into 4B thanks to social media. Yes, the same outlets where people do stupid dances or post images of food are responsible for this movement coming to our shores. To which I say fuck you very much.
Or not.
And the thought behind this is just as shallow as the “influencers” on the aforementioned social media sites. Because Donald Trump appointed Supreme Court Justices who…horror of horrors…told the country abortion was a state issue, the misogyny of men not wanting to vote for Queen Kamala the Appointed because she ran a campaign so bad it made Walter Mondale circa 1984 look like Ronald Reagan circa 1984, and Orange Man Bad, of course, Leftist women are going to…adopt conservative values.
Holy self-own, Batman!
But it gets even better when you consider the Left’s fascination with abortion. Not only was it one of Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign cornerstones, but it’s a wedge issue that has worked time and time again in getting votes from a wide swath of the female population. Didn’t work this time, but that’s a blog post for another day.
Anyway, imagine the impact of Leftist women not having sex. Aside from making Tinder a lot easier for horny men to find a hook-up, it has the potential to reduce the number of abortions done. And what was one of the reason Leftist women want to adopt 4B?
Abortion rights.
Looks like Planned Parenthood is going to need even more federal funds to keep the doors open. Good luck with that with the incoming Administration and Congress, ladies.
To make matters worse (and by worse I mean a lot funnier), Leftist women are doing everything they can to repel men. Many are shaving their heads, getting tattoos or blue bracelets to show they voted for Queen Kamala the Appointed (and, thus, “safe”), or even suggesting men should be poisoned. Because that’s completely rational and totally not ultra-turbo-psycho-bitch behavior.
There are a lot of jokes I could make about Leftist women taking this tack, like how a significant chunk of the women backing 4B in America won’t have to worry about ever needing to get an abortion because they are less likely to have sex than an Amish eunuch, but that’s not what I do. That kind of superficiality only matches the superficiality of the women deciding to adopt 4B and, to be frank (or if you prefer, Steve), they really don’t deserve it.
Now, pointing and laughing, on the other hand…
Seriously, kids, it’s hard for me to take the Americanized version of 4B seriously because it makes no sense on any level and it reduces women to their lady parts…which is what a lot of immature men already do. Leftists believe women’s vaginas create a sisterhood that requires all women to think, speak, and most importantly vote a certain way. Otherwise you’re betraying your gender.
Unless, of course, there are women to the right of Gloria Steinem. Then, fuck those women!
But there is no such sisterhood, and there never has been. Men don’t think, act, and vote a certain way because we all have dicks. We do that because we’re men. We are pretty simple creatures when you get right down to it. It’s hard-wired into our DNA from Ug on down.
Women, by contrast, are much more complex, and I for one am glad for that. The females of the species are more in tune with their emotions (which explains a lot about the Leftist women signing on for 4 years of 4B when you think about it) because it’s hard-wired into their DNA. A woman is a marvel of creation, able to be a fierce lover and a fierce fighter depending on the situation, being the one responsible for carrying life within her body, and having the intelligence to guide her male counterpart towards a better way.
But Leftist women believe in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Vajayjay.
Call me crazy (and I’m sure you will if you haven’t already), but that comes off as incredibly condescending and, dare I say it (Spoiler Alert: I do dare), rather misogynistic. By viewing everything through the pussy prism, Leftists strip away everything that makes women special and turns them into objects without agency. As bad as you Leftists think Donald Trump is, you aren’t much better.
It will be interesting to see how long Leftist women will keep up with the tenets of 4B. It might last as long as a TikTok dance fad or go on and on like “The View.” In either case, I think I can speak for a good chunk of the American male population with this simple sentence.
Your terms are acceptable.
Category: Social Issues
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With less that two weeks away from Election Day (please check local listings for the number of days in your area), it’s crunch time for Donald Trump and Queen Kamala the Appointed. Many votes are still up for grabs, and both tickets are vying for them.
One of the voting blocs the Harris/Walz ticket has been really trying to get is women, and with good reason. Women make up a little over half of the American population, so they have the power to make or break an election. But the Left wants women to know they can vote for Queen Kamala the Appointed without their male partners knowing, thanks to a website called VoteWithoutFear.com. Apparently, Leftists think women will be frightened into voting for Trump because of their male counterparts, so they just want to reassure women their voices can be heard without anyone else knowing it.
Or so they say.
VoteWithoutFear.com
What the Left thinks it means – a website that provides necessary information for women to vote for who they want
What it really means – a website that provided information that should already be known and encourages deceit
Voting is a sacred right, one that not everyone uses on a regular basis. In the 2020 election, 66.8% of the population 18 years of age and older voted, and this was a high point this century. That means over a third of the population didn’t vote for one reason or another, and that opens a window of opportunity for outreach.
On the surface, VoteWithoutFear.com offers advice to women who want to vote, which is not a big issue in and of itself. From the website itself:
Now here’s the important part – WHO you actually vote for on the ballot is not public information. You do not need to tell your spouse who you voted for, even if they ask. Your right to vote is part of our civil liberties, and your vote is your own – that being said, do whatever you need to do to remain safe.
Although this information is truthful, it’s also something voting adults should already know, especially if they stayed awake in civics class…or even had civics class for that matter. What we have here is a little thing the kids like to call a secret ballot. Even if we have political bumper stickers all over our vehicles and more yard signs than actual yard, we don’t have to tell anyone how we vote in a public election. Union elections, on the other hand…
The reason for the secret ballot is to add a layer of protection for the voter against coercion/intimidation from outside parties. Apparently, Leftists think MAGA Males are forcing their wives, girlfriends, daughters, etc. to vote for Trump against their better judgments. In the Leftist hivemind, no self-respecting woman would vote for Trump because, well, Orange Man Bad. Of course, this runs afoul of one of the Left’s favorite causes, female autonomy.
From the party that gave us “My Body, My Choice” when it comes to abortion apparently think women can’t be trusted to vote the “right way,” i.e. for an unqualified woman because she has a vajayjay. The existence of a common body part doesn’t equate into a binding agreement to vote a certain way. It would be like a candidate saying you need to vote for him/her because you have a foot. It doesn’t make any sense.
Then again, if it made any sense, it wouldn’t qualify for being a Leftist squawking point.
Even if the Left doesn’t think free-thinking pro-Trump women exist, the way they approached the woman vote in the 2024 election is simplistic and intellectually demeaning to the very people they’re trying to court. If you look more closely at the VoteWithoutFear website (and I did because I have a life that make the Amish look like Hugh Hefner), the way they phrase their points comes off as more condescending than informational. Granted, they may be playing to an audience, but there’s a difference between keeping things simple and making things sound like you’re talking down to them.
Which is pretty much the Leftist MO.
The Left have played a self-contradictory game with women. While claiming to champion women’s rights (i.e. abortion), they treat women like children who need to be lead by the hand into doing the right thing (i.e. voting for abortion). They say women are just as smart, capable, and successful as men, but they just can’t be trusted to vote for who they want. And after years of painting Donald Trump as a sexual predator who wants to strip away women’s rights and turn the country into a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia, the Left thinks they’ve greased the wheels to making a vote against Trump a no-brainer.
The problem? Some women don’t give a fuck.
Just because you bring up plausible concerns about Trump doesn’t make those concerns universal. And when the Left has used women as pawns, as they did with Cindy Sheehan and Christine Blasey Ford, it gets harder for them to make an argument that they actually care about women as women. But they care a lot about men who claim to be women for whatever reason because trans women are women, even if they still have a dick and male chromosomes.
Which goes to show the Left knows as much about women as they do about men. Or men in general, but that’s neither here nor there.
The larger point is men and women process things differently, and that’s okay. If you love someone enough, you can get past any differences and focus on those characteristics that unite us. My wife and I have different political and ideological stands on issues, but we’re smart enough to not let that define our relationship. I trust her to vote for whomever she wants without having to justify it to me, and vice versa. If you have to hide who you’re voting for to “keep the peace,” the relationship is already on shaky ground.
Good thing the VoteWithoutFear website offers advice on divorce. And, yes, that was sarcasm.
It should be pointed out a lie of omission, like lying to a spouse about whether you’re voting for one candidate or another, is still a lie, and it can drastically affect a relationship. But the Left doesn’t care as long as they get the woman vote. It’s almost like the same people who bashed JD Vance for referencing “childless cat ladies” want women to be…childless cat ladies. How weird is that?
Therein lies the real issue with VoteWithoutFear and the Left’s approach towards women: it denies the complexity of women in general. I’m not a woman, but even I get it. Although there was this time in college where I was a woman, but I was in love with this really dreamy guy and…did I type that out loud? Nevermind.
The point is Leftists reduce women to body parts without agency until the Left steps in and try to speak on women’s behalf. Leftists are mystified by the vagina to the point of deifying it. And I thought incels were desperate losers! When you create expectations of anyone on the basis of what they have in their pants, there is going to be a point where the reality doesn’t match up with the expectations.
Hence, the reason Leftists don’t understand pro-Trump women. They expect the Sisterhood of the Traveling Vajayjay, but get women who think outside of their pants to what matters more to them than a mutual body part. And, if I’m being honest here, Leftists haven’t done a good job in standing up for women lately. You know who has?
Donald Fucking Trump.
By aligning himself with movements to keep women’s sports and spaces for biological women, Trump has a track record of supporting women (and, in some cases, paying them hush money). The best Queen Kamala the Appointed has brought forth is protecting abortion and claiming to be raised middle class. Oh, and hauling out celebrities to help her.
Stunning. Truly stunning and/or brave.
The braintrust behind VoteWithoutFear.com is playing into the Left’s preconceived notion that women are helpless creatures (when they’re not being super awesome Boss Bitches). I would say I’m insulted, but that’s not my place, nor am I going to be insulted on behalf of women. Instead, I’m going to say it’s doing a disservice to women everywhere to treat them like the sum of their body parts. There are plenty of strong women who don’t need a website or a political party to tell them how to vote, and these are the women who should be championed far more than they are.
Even if you’re a woman reading this and still want to vote for Harris/Walz, so be it. Just know the Left doesn’t see you the way you see yourself. They have reduced you to a single body part and a single issue. As bad as Trump has been dealing with various women throughout his life, he is at least listening to them and trying to address their concerns more often than Queen Kamala the Appointed has.
At least he only grabs them by the pussy instead of reducing them to a pussy.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As Election Day looms over our heads like the Sword of Damocles, Queen Kamala the Appointed is trying to shore up as many voters as she can to try to deny Donald Trump. Let’s just say it hasn’t gone well. Even captain of the Exxon Valdez Joseph Hazelwood is saying the Harris/Walz campaign is a disaster.
And speaking of reaches for humorous intent, there’s a group called White Dudes for Harris who recently put out a…well, one of the dumbfuckiest ads I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing. And it only cost $10 million! Not to be out dumbfucked, some genius decided to put professional actors in an ad about how real men support Queen Kamala the Appointed.
Someone get Bath and Body Works on the horn. I think I may have found who okayed their snowflake candle packaging!
Either way, I find it interesting the Left is suddenly interested in masculinity as a positive attribute. Usually, Leftists hate all men, even the ones who agree with them in an attempt to get a laid…not that I know anything about that, mind you. Meanwhile, we have a Lexicon entry to get to!
masculinity
What the Left thinks it means – the way a man acts, talks, dresses, and so forth
What it really means – a subject about which Leftists know nothing, which isn’t that different from any other subject when you think about it
One of the things I like best about my life is I remember what things were like before the shit hit the fan. Back in my day, men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused. Seriously, though, we may have any number of men as role models each representing a different facet of the male experience (think Tom Selleck and Boy George), and people were okay with it.
Except for Leftists.
Somewhere between the second and third wave of feminism, men became an appendix with a credit line: fun for a while, but ultimately useless. Soon, the only way a man could get anywhere near a woman without being called a rapist was for the man to completely reject his masculinity, and even then you weren’t safe from scrutiny. Being a guy in the late 80s and throughout the 90s was a minefield of potential bad mistakes. And I’m not just talking about the 3 AM hookups…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
This attitude found its way into politics. (The man-hating, not the 3 AM hookups.) You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hitting a horndog male politician who got caught in a sexual situation because, well, men. But even when that aforementioned cat hit that aforementioned horndog, there had to be exceptions for politicians who acted poorly, but supported the right politics.
And the biggest example of the eternal Hall Pass was Slick Willie himself, Bill Clinton. Leftists went from hating white male politicians to wanting to service the Commander In Briefs just for protecting abortion rights. To the Left, Clinton was the epitome of masculinity, genital warts and all.
As funny as it was to see Leftists throw away their self-imposed standards to back a man who only used them for his own satisfaction (and also to win elections), it gave me insight into just how the Left feels about masculinity.
They don’t know what the fuck it is, but they’re damn sure going to try to define it.
And as you might expect, they’re doing a shitty job of it. When they’re not saying gender is a spectrum or is a social construct, they’re saying men can have periods, have babies, and can even redefine womanhood. And you thought outsourcing jobs was bad!
Yet, in spite of their attempts to remake men into Dylan Mulvaney clones, not every guy wants to get rid of masculinity. They’re happy doing guy shit, like working on cars, hunting, and so forth. So how do Leftists try to win over these potential voters? You guessed it, by talking down to them like they were idiots. Granted, depending on where you go the odds might be in their favor, but from a political standpoint, it’s a losing strategy.
Just as Queen Kamala the Appointed found out. When she saw her numbers among white male voters sink lower than an earthworm’s cock ring, someone had the brilliant idea of trying to appeal to male voters by…hosting a White Dudes For Harris Zoom call with Leftist white dudes! Sign me up for that!
For any Leftists out there reading this, that was sarcasm.
The Harris/Walz campaign has leaned heavily into what they think masculinity should be. And their lapdogs in the media are helping. Reuters devoted time and energy to painting Tim Walz as an evolved man (all while trying to appear to be a normal guy working on his truck and hunting). Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is being fawned over for redefining masculinity. (His first wife could not be reached for comment.)
And the whipped cream on top of this shit sundae (or any day for that matter) is the term Leftists have created to describe the Walz/Emhoff model of masculinity: nontoxic masculinity. I’ll save you a click: it’s basically being a man that would make Richard Simmons look like Chuck Norris.
That opens up a whole new Costco-sized can of worms that loops back to the point I made earlier about how little Leftists understand men. The Left have defined toxic masculinity as a series of negative traits like dominance and emotional distance that are typically seen as preferred masculine traits. Apparently, the people behind this concept have never been married. (PS, I love you, honey! Please stop watching “Deadly Wives.”)
Although there is some merit to not exhibiting the more negative elements of masculinity, there’s a lot more under the surface that complicates things. For one, men are different than women. I know. It shocked me, too. But even I have to repeat this fact to the Left (who are soooooo much smarter than us, by the way) because of how little the Left knows about masculinity.
Some of the traits attributed to toxic masculinity are hard-wired into the male experience. Back in the old days (affectionately known as my childhood), men didn’t have time to process emotions because they were too busy trying to survive. Men were (and still are) hunters and gatherers at heart. If they fail to come through in providing for their families, there are negative implications. Granted, these days those implications may be limited to having to spend the night on the old musty futon in the basement, but the principle is the same. Men are seen as providers, and with that comes a lot of responsibility and psychological baggage.
And the Left thinks putting a flannel shirt on a guy who doesn’t know a fuel pump from a pumpkin spice latte is better.
Here’s the thing. Masculinity, much like Queen Kamala the Appointed’s policy positions, is vague, can cover a lot of ground, and is often contradictory depending on the day. As a result, trying to redefine it to fit a current political need is pointless. And extremely comical, as the most recent “I’m a man supporting Kamala Harris” ad was.
What made this ad so funny was in how superficial the men were in it. The more I thought about it, the more it reminded me of something. Then, it hit me.
The guys in the ad…were the modern day Village People. The cowboy, the gym bro, the farmer, all stereotypical male archetypes. And the old guy could easily pass as a biker! All they needed was a cop and a sailor and they could go on tour. Maybe they could open for man-turned-pretend-woman Dylan Mulvaney, who could sing his rendition of a song from “The Book of Mormon” called “Man Up.”
Trust me, Leftists. That tour will bring out tens and tens of fans.
The other comparison I can make involves a talk radio network I affectionately call Err America. Billed as the liberal alternative to talk radio, they did their best to copy the success Rush Limbaugh and others experienced. And they failed, mainly for the same reason the Harris/Walz campaign is failing with men: they went with the stereotype instead of finding the deeper context that would have made them at least somewhat credible as an alternative.
So, that’s where we are with the Leftist view of masculinity. In their attempts to attract male voters, they have exposed a glaring weakness in their philosophy about it, and they are getting slammed for it. And rightly so.
Plus, it’s hypocritical (and, therefore, utterly mockworthy) for the Left to say gender is whatever you want it to be while at the same time extolling the virtues of what they think are real men…who just happen to want Queen Kamala the Appointed to be President. The whole concept of masculinity doesn’t revolve around what box you check on your ballot in November. It’s goes a lot deeper, and the Left clearly doesn’t want to take the time to figure it out. As a result, their “outreach” becomes a comical attempt at pandering that is all show and no go.
But I’m sure the Left would never try that backwards approach with people of different races…or genders…or sexual orientations…or religions…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the impending Presidential election, there are a number of hot button issues, ranging from abortion to illegal immigration. There are so many new areas that only a complete fuckwit would dredge up a topic that’s been deader than Diddy’s career. (Too soon?)
And then Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson had to open his stupid mouth. For those of you not up on politics in the Windy City, Mayor Johnson is trying to kowtow…I mean capitulate…I mean negotiate with teacher’s unions to the tune of $300 million. And apparently he thinks being in favor of fiscal responsibility by telling the teacher’s union to go fuck themselves is akin to…slavery.
Fuck me sideways.
slavery
What the Left thinks it means – a dark period of American history that whites must still atone for
What it really means – a dark period of American history that is just that, history
In the annuls of human history, one thing is abundantly clear: everybody hates “Friday” by Rebecca Black. But something else that’s clear is how humans can be complete assholes to each other, which I guess brings us back to the song that is banned under the Geneva Convention because it is considered torture.
Anyway, slavery is not one of the brightest spots in human history, and America had its role in it. It’s as much a part of our history as Plymouth Rock, the Boston Tea Party, and the Cubs being mathematically eliminated from the post season. Much like hipness, it is what it is.
But Leftists can’t seem to let it go. They have used the past to bludgeon white Leftists into submission (literal and figurative, so long as there’s money involved) and made them feel responsible for the sins of the great great great great grandfathers. To Leftists, if you’re white, you’re responsible.
Of course, that doesn’t take a lot into account, but why would a Leftist care about context when it could totally destroy the narrative?
As the relative of two Civil War veterans who fought for the Union, I might have an opinion on how fucking stupid the Left is being bringing up slavery in any context almost 160 years after the end of the Civil War. The Hatfields and McCoys didn’t hold a grudge that long and hard!
Huh huh huh. I said long and hard.
Meanwhile back at the main point, slavery has a place in our history, and that place is in the fucking past. Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from bringing it up to discuss current conditions within the black community. Racist hack…I mean best selling author Nikole Hannah Jones gave us the pseudo-historical shitshow called The 1619 Project based around slavery. Even the United Nations sounded off on the effects of slavery on modern society.
Did I mention the end of the Civil War was almost 160 years ago?
Here’s the thing. Nobody alive today has direct ties to the slave trade. Yes, there are relatives on both sides of that awful equation, but they are waaaaaaaay back there in the mists of our history. Today’s problems have their roots not in the time frame Roots was about, but in the shit going on right now. Gang violence, drug culture, promiscuity, all of that is a modern phenomenon. No slave masters necessary.
Unless you count the Leftists, of course.
Yes, I went there.
The fact is Leftists don’t want blacks to be successful, intelligent, and empowered. To keep people under their thumbs, Leftists need them to be dependent on the largess of the government (i.e. our money that isn’t going to Ukraine or Lebanon) for basic needs.
You know, like…slaves?
That’s why I take the Left’s constant references to slavery with a Mount Everest-sized grain of salt. They want to make us feel guilty about our past and turn our heads when they emulate the slave masters of the era about which they want us to feel guilty. I’m sorry, but I’m not as morally flexible as an unethical yoga instructor, so I can’t let that slide.
Now, Leftists are bound to throw the usual “you’re a racist” bullshit at me for saying this and challenging their skewed worldview by pointing out what they do. My counter to this is simple: I want everyone to reach their full potential and want to knock as many barriers out of their way as I can. And that includes the barriers placed on them by people who give one-one-millionth of a shit about them as people.
I come from the MLK school of thought, where a person is judged by the content of his/her character more than the color of his/her skin, because it makes the most sense. Judging someone solely on race ignores the rest of the totality of a person. Just because you’re black doesn’t mean you’re a horrible person, unless you’re Diddy. (Too soon again?) Once we get to know each other, the more we can navigate the way we communicate with, think about, and tolerate each other. That transcends race and any other superficial matter that can be used to separate us. It’s just being a decent fucking person.
And that’s why the Chicago situation amuses me so much. The Mayor using slavery to justify forking over millions of dollars to the teacher’s union isn’t being decent, but it is being deceitful. The teacher’s unions aren’t being decent because they just want the money without having to actually do anything to get it. The only people who have any claim to being decent are the ones pushing back against this stupid deal, whether it be for fiscal reasons or because they’ve seen this story play out before and nothing gets better.
And for that, opponents to Mayor Dumbass… I mean Johnson’s plans get compared to slave owners because…fuck it, I got nothing. Not even the stated reasons make sense unless you’re predisposed to believe everything can be tied back to slavery, oppression, or some Leftist buzzword.
And the real kicker is no matter how much money gets loaned out to the teacher’s unions, it will never be enough. The schools will continue to fail (in part because of the unions), Leftists will continue to make people feel guilty about shit they didn’t do, and the racial elements of the controversy will get played over and over like “Baby Shark.” Until enough people tell these fuckwits to piss off, it will keep happening and the black community will continue to get screwed by white Leftists.
Kinda like the slaveholders did, only with a lot less lube.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a recovering Leftist, I fully admit I used to believe some weird, illogical shit in my youth. Back then it was easy because a) Leftists knew just what to say to get me to believe them, and b) I was a dumbass. But the shit the Left wants us to accept as fact is well beyond anything I believed in my youth.
And for once I’m not talking about one of Queen Kamala the Appointed’s speeches. However, I’m starting to think there’s something in the Left’s water supply that is making their beliefs even more bizarre than usual. The latest example came from House Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett. During a hearing regarding the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI against political opponents (read: anyone to the right of Karl Marx), Ms. Plaskett uttered the following:
…so that those agencies [the DOJ and FBI] are no longer there to serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former president and would-be dictator Donald Trump.
Her full insane rant…I mean statement wasn’t much better at sticking to reality. But she did mention one thing worth discussion, that being white fragility. This term has been thrown around a lot in recent years, mainly by racists and their supporters, to mock white people for getting offended or upset about things. So, as a Honkey-American, I wanted to take a closer look at white fragility to see what it was.
white fragility
What the Left thinks it means – the negative reactions whites feel when non-whites discuss racism
What it really means – a made-up term designed to make whites feel more guilty than they should on racial matters
The term white fragility was coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo who focuses on, get this, whiteness studies and critical discourse analysis. When she’s not allegedly copying off black scholars and passing their work off as her own or being made to look like an idiot by Matt Walsh, she’s turned a bullshit specialization into a cash cow. She’s written a book on the subject, became the Left’s favorite anti-white honkey, and is being taken seriously by people like Stacey Plaskett.
And, no, that’s not a compliment, ma’am.
The idea behind white fragility is simple: white people feel guilty, angry, etc., when people not like them talk about racism, which is (surprise surprise)…racist, according to Dr. DiAngelo. So, if you’re confused by the logic, and believe me I get it, if a white person tries to speak about racism in a group of non-whites, it’s white privilege. If that same person doesn’t speak about racism in a group of non-whites, it’s white fragility and racist.
That kind of thinking makes the Kobayashi Maru look like a Connect the Dots puzzle with only one dot.
The thing about white fragility is it derives from Leftist squawking points on race. You know, the sentiments whites are the root of all evil and can only redeem themselves by actively fighting racism at every turn as dictated by the Left? Yeah, that’s not gonna fly with anyone with two working brain cells to rub together.
Which means, it’s perfect for guilting white Leftists into becoming slaves.
Look, whites have been absolute assholes to minorities for a long time, and it’s important we recognize that so it doesn’t happen as widely as it once did. But where the Left goes off the rails is making it a permanent condition. They don’t want whites to acknowledge our history; they want us to be eternally burdened by it.
And now, we have some Congressional dipshit wanting the FBI and Department of Justice to combat it? Maybe it’s me, but I would think the federal government should want whites to get rid of its white fragility, not fight against it as the aforementioned dipshit says. But, that’s where my hypothesis of something being in the Left’s water supply makes a lot more sense.
More to the point, white fragility doesn’t take into account one major factor: most people don’t give a shit. After being barraged with “white people suck” day after day ad nauseum, there are a lot of whites who shut down and tune out that claptrap because they’re tired of it. Others, like your humble correspondent, aren’t concerned about race because…now get this…we treat each other like fellow human beings. In those cases, race doesn’t even enter the equation, so there’s nothing we feel we have to feel guilty about.
And that drives Leftists crazy…er. The Left is obsessed with anything that can be used to categorize and then separate us. After all, what better way to rule over people than to keep them at each other’s throats by suggesting the different parties are trying to screw over everyone else?
So, what happens when we decide not to be divided? Aside from the Left losing their shit, it shows we aren’t that far off as a country. There are few actual racists out there, mainly because America has evolved to reject racism. Yet, in order to get people to believe what the Left wants us to believe, they have to stoke any division they can.
Even if they have to invent it out of nothing. You know, like an academic focus on “whiteness.” Which reminds me of a line from the Oscar-snubbed cinematic classic “PCU”: You can major in GameBoy if you know how to bullshit.
Not surprisingly, white fragility is just another way for the Left to keep racism alive. The problem is it assumes only whites are fragile. Granted, if everyone you know is a white Leftist, that’s a safe assumption. The fact is Leftists are all fragile. It’s just a matter of what causes them to shatter.
The easiest way to do that is to deny their premise. Reject the notion of white fragility by pointing out the flaws in the notion, namely the fact the Left only sees white fragility while ignoring the fragility of other races. Case in point: Joy Ann Reid. She makes an emo kid look stable on a regular basis. To call her unhinged is assuming she was ever hinged to begin with, and that’s just a bridge too far for me.
When you really think about it (and I do because the Indiana Fever were swept in the WBNA Finals), the very concept that only whites can be fragile is the definition of racism. Remember, kids, racism isn’t just about someone believing one race is better than another. It’s also about someone believing one race is inferior.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. Our friends at Dictionary.com agree.
Pull that kind of intellectual judo on a Leftist and they lose their shit. And when it comes to white fragility, they deserve to lose their shit.
So, with no due respect Ms. Plaskett, white fragility is only a thing to the Left. The rest of us are just fine not talking about race because we don’t particularly care. Besides, college football is on and that’s a hell of a lot more entertaining than worrying about whether we’re meeting some Leftist’s expectations on talking about race.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In my years of being a Leftist and covering them, there is one rock-solid, take-it-to-the-bank statement that not even the most honest Leftists can deny: Leftists say some really weird shit. And I’m not just talking about prolonged discussions on the virtues of Drag Queen Story Hours or the actual number of genders (still two, by the way). Even when I’m prepared for the weird shit, there are times when even I have to take a step back and admire the nuttier-than-squirrel-shit take.
Like this one from The Hill website, “Are the Democrats Now the Party of Reagan?” Although the premise is as absurd as the media allowing a major party candidate to go unquestioned for more than a few minutes, let alone weeks (good thing that never happens, amirite?), it did get me to thinking. Which lead me to writing this week’s Lexicon, since that’s kinda what I do around here.
the party of Reagan
What the Left thinks it means – a by-gone era that should stay in the past because it was so horrible, except when it can be used to attract voters
What it really means – a by-gone era that the Left still doesn’t understand
The 1980s were a decade of dayglo oddities. The old excesses of the late 70s continued (including the coke habits) while new technologies started to take hold. Celebrities rose and empires fell. And at the core of it all was Ronald Reagan.
Say what you will about the man, but Ronald Reagan was a generational President in both good and bad ways. His strength when dealing with the former Soviet Union, his economic policies, and his undying love of America held us in good stead during a time when America’s self-opinion was lower than a snake’s codpiece. Yet, the way he handled Iran/Contra, his mental decline in his later years, and some of the policy decisions he made with AIDS and apartheid in South Africa were less than awesome.
In short, Reagan was just like the rest of us. Only with more access to the nuclear arsenal.
The Left’s hatred of the Reagan era stemmed from their unrequited love of the former Soviet Union. After decades of appeasing the Soviets, Reagan became an aggressor because he realized what the super-smart Leftists (just ask them) didn’t: communism doesn’t work. At some point, the communists run out of other people’s money, which creates either massive deficit spending, a greater reliance on those who are already carrying the bulk of the weight, or a combination of the two.
There’s that economics degree Reagan earned coming into play.
Once the Soviet Union went the way of the Atari 2600 “E.T.” video game, the Left’s hatred of Reagan intensified. Sure, they had other legit and semi-legit criticisms as noted above, but he proved them wrong. Appeasing the Soviets only allowed them to continue stockpiling weapons, making plans to conquer the rest of the world, and putting out shitty products under the auspices of everyone being equal (except for the party leaders, of course). Leftists at the time swore up and down Reagan would lead us into World War III, create a nuclear holocaust, and destroy the planet.
You know, like Leftists said Donald Trump would do?
When that didn’t happen, Leftists couldn’t handle it. And since they were the ones writing the history books at the time, they did their best to control the narrative. Once the Berlin Wall fell, though, they couldn’t get it done with those who actually lived and paid attention during that time. So, Leftists decided to wait a generation or two to get their version of events to become the primary timeline.
Which brings us to the party of Reagan. As much as I would like to say today’s Republican Party is an offshoot of the Reagan years, I can’t. Both major parties shed their skins some time ago and evolved into parties that no longer resemble their namesakes. Democrats and Republicans are both fans of big government at times, but only when they’re running it. And they’re not afraid to use force to get what they want. Remember the COVID lockdowns? President Trump and President Brick Tamland didn’t deviate that much policywise. Of course, much of that can be laid the feet of Saint Anthony of Fauci’s fault, Patron Saint of Scientific Bullshit, but both Trump and Tamland were reading from the same script.
Furthermore, the Republican “leadership” is as flaky as a croissant at times. Sure, they talk a great game about fiscal responsibility and conservative values, but they will sell those out in the name of compromising with people who think they’re the most evil people on the planet. And it happens time after time after time.
And the Democrats? They’re selling out to the lunatic fringe at every opportunity. From the Green New Boondoggle to the anti-Israel sentiment from The Squad, the Left has gone so far left Karl Marx looks like Milton Friedman, both in ideology and in economic knowledge. Today’s Left is turning off a lot more people than they’re attracting, or at the very least they’re turning off enough Leftists with actual jobs and money. This makes for an interesting internal civil war for the soul of the Left, and hopefully an even more interesting blog post later.
Meanwhile, it amazes me anybody with two brain cells to rub together would think Democrats are now the party of Reagan. Then again, this is an opinion writer from The Hill, so your intellectual mileage may vary. The way the author makes it sound, Republicans have abandoned the principles Reagan laid out, which they have for the most part. But he fails to make the connection that Democrats have taken up the mantle. The best he comes up with is Democrats’ undying support for Ukraine (which reflects not only a lack of understanding of Reagan’s foreign policy , but a fundamental lack of understanding of just how fucked up Ukraine’s leadership is).
His case isn’t exactly bolstered by self-professed Reaganites like Bill Kristol, Adam Kinslinger, and Liz Cheney, whose conservative bonafides are more questionable than three day old convenience store sushi. Or a freshly-made meal at Chipotle, for that matter. While the aforementioned Republicans (and many more like them who will remain nameless to protect the innocent and the dumbasses) tout how much closer they are to Reagan than any of the current crop of Republicans, the fact is they’re closer to Regan from “The Exorcist” than Reagan himself.
So, if the Republicans aren’t the party of Reagan anymore and the Democrats never have been and never will be if the current crop of fuckups have any say in the matter, who is the party of Reagan today? Unfortunately, there is no party that has it even remotely right. Either the fiscal policies are out of whack or the social and military policies are off, so there’s no real safe haven for those of us who have a fond memory of what Reagan stood for. So, we’re stuck either holding our noses for candidates who Reagan wouldn’t even acknowledge as Republicans, voting for a third party because we can’t hold our nose enough to vote for Republicans, or writing in candidates like your humble correspondent.
By the way, SMOD 24, baby!
Maybe it’s time we should stop thinking in terms of Reagan as far as political leadership is concerned, but not in terms of the grassroots. Even if our elected officials don’t hold Reagan in high esteem, we still can. American pride, appreciation of hard work, a love of the free market, all these things and much more are still within our power to use in our lives.
Plus, it will piss off Leftists, so win-win, baby!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
While Kamala Harris and Tim Walz continue their Happy Happy Joy Joy Tour, there is a term that has resurfaced unironically that I haven’t heard in a while: communism. And here I thought communism went the way of the Berlin Wall!
Anyway, Tim “Mirror Universe Dick Cheney” Walz described communism as it’s being forced…I mean practiced in China as, “It means that everyone is the same and everyone shares.” Granted, this was way back in 1991 when Walz hadn’t yet become Governor and was just a social studies teacher…wait, that makes it worse. Never mind.
Anyway, I figured it would be a good time to talk about communism since we have a VP candidate who thinks it’s neato.
communism
What the Left thinks it means – a socioeconomic system where everyone is treated equally, but one that has never been truly tried yet
What it really means – a socioeconomic system that only works on paper, as has been proven the times it’s been tried
At this point, I have to bring up communism’s stoner cousin, socialism. They share a similar lineage in that they both believe the government is the ultimate provider of all that is good and right in the world. Hmmm…I would say that sounds like the Harris/Walz platform except for the fact they really don’t have one.
Where they part company is in the use of violence and threats to maintain power. Socialism isn’t necessarily violent by nature. They just want everyone to voluntarily share with others. It’s a lot more peaceful than people think it is.
Then, there’s communism. Violence and threats are the coin of the realm in communist countries (mainly because their actual currency is worth less than a plot in a Michael Bay movie). Any concept of thought outside of the party dogma is dangerous and must be considered the communist version of a heretic.
The best way I’ve come up with to describe the fundamental differences between communism and socialism is thus. Socialism is communism on pot. Communism is socialism on PCP. And if you know anything about what happens to people on PCP, you know the shit hits the fan in ways you would never think possible.
As we speak, there are Leftists starting to type, “But both of them are about sharing and equality! Why are you against that, you bigot?” The fact is neither socialism nor communism will get you to your desired utopia, thanks to a little thing the kids like to call reality. And, yes, I understand Leftists tend to have a restraining order requiring reality to stay at least 500 feet away from them at all times, but Leftists need to listen to this next part.
All people are created equal in the sense most of the time Dad had to park his pork submarine in Mom’s tuna cove, but beyond that we aren’t. We are born with traits and hindrances from the jump. In order for us be equal, we would have to deny these things exist. And we all know we can’t deny science, right Leftists? I mean aside from there being two genders and such…
Since God, Nature, C’thulu, or whomever you want to blame didn’t make us equal, some dipshits thought it would be a great idea for Man to force equality. And those dipshits created socialism, which begat communism. And it didn’t work.
We Americans need only to go back to the time of the Pilgrims to see how the ideas behind communism and socialism fail in a spectacular way. Yet, Leftists keep thinking if they just try it again, it will work or else it wasn’t “real” communism/socialism. But, the thing is…it doesn’t work on a wide scale because human beings are more complex than what the aforementioned dipshits understand.
Here’s an example to illustrate this point. Let’s say you have two employees, Bob and Doug. Bob is diligent, goes above and beyond with every task put in front of him, and is a high performer. Doug…is none of these. He’s lazy, not very productive, and does the bare minimum at best to take care of things. Under most circumstances (unless Doug is related to the owner or has compromising photos of the owner), Doug would be out on his ass before he could say “Take off, hoser!”
Oh, I forgot to mention, Bob and Doug are Canadian.
Anyway, under communism, Bob would get punished for excelling and Doug would get rewarded for his sloth because the government would take from Bob to make sure Doug is taken care of. At some point, Bob is going to stop working so hard because there’s no upside to it. So, instead of having one superb employee and one subpar former employee having to give hand-jobs in a Tim Horton’s bathroom, you have two equally mediocre employees.
And somehow that’s supposed to work better than capitalism.
By the way, the Underpants Gnomes have better business sense than people who think communism could still work.
And if you think the Bob and Doug example was bad, just consider what kinds of products such mediocrity cranks out. Like Vice Presidential candidates.
And speaking of which, here’s what Tim Walz wrote about Chinese communism:
The doctor and the construction worker make the same. The Chinese government and the place they work for provide housing and 14 kg or about 30 pounds of rice per month. They get food and housing.
Of course, Walz wrote this from a decorated and air conditioned apartment on a salary double that of his Chinese teacher counterparts. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say Walz had it way better than the average Chinese person. Unless he’s going with the George Orwell version of equality, that is.
By the way, Timmy, I think Orwell was kidding.
But I’m not sure Timmy is. It seems he has a penchant for communism and socialism, which explains the warm fuzzies he got from hanging out in China. It might also explain his recent statement, “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” But there is a simpler explanation.
Tim Walz is dumber than Kamala Harris when it comes to economics, and Harris makes President Brick Tamland look like Milton Friedman. And all of them are smarter than Paul Krugman. No great feat, I grant you, but credit where credit is due.
Regardless of how you feel about Tim Walz and his socioeconomic hard-on for communism, the truth is communism is not a system that should be taken seriously. If anything, it should be dragged out of the flaming dumpster of history every once in a while to be mocked as a teachable moment for the children.
And for the dumbass politicians who think communism isn’t bullshit.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Here We Go Again!
If there’s been one policy idea that President Brick Tamland has been trying to get off the ground, it’s student loan debt forgiveness. Even after the Supreme Court smacked it down, our boy Brick has continued to push for it. Recently, he rolled out new initiatives to help those with student loan debt to the tune of a measly $7.7 billion. In spite of the fact the Supreme Court said he doesn’t have the power to do it, as Nancy Pelosi noted.
But that’s not what this piece is about.
When announcing these new initiatives, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said the following:
We must continue to protect borrowers from predatory institutions—and work toward a higher education system that is affordable to students and taxpayers.
Hmmm…now, where have I heard the term “predatory” used before…oh, yeah, the mortgage bank crisis!
Without going into the gory details, I was in the mortgage industry when the shit hit the fan. Through government fuck-ups disguised as helping people, lenders skirting the law to make sales, house-flippers whose only motivation was to make a quick buck, and borrowers being dumber than a bag of hammers about Economics 101 for Dummies, the mortgage industry was in a world of hurt. Naturally, people started looking for any kind of help.
Enter Big Daddy Government! They would fix the problem by going after the easiest of targets: the lenders themselves. Now, I’m not saying all of the lenders were working above board and even some of the more reputable ones had hinky loan terms that you would need to be careful to read and understand before signing on the dotted line. But speaking from what I saw more often than not, the problems blamed solely on the banks were (or at least should have been) a shared responsibility.
That’s one of the reasons I didn’t like “The Big Short” as much as everyone else did. In an attempt to create an entertaining movie-going experience, it left out a LOT of shady shit and utter incompetence. And that’s just within the federal government!
Anyway, the point is people looked to the government to help bring those predatory lenders to heel, and the government responded by…expanding itself. Up until the mortgage crisis, mortgage complaints fell under the umbrella of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. But those DC galaxy-brain thinkers didn’t think it was enough to make every mortgage bank jump through the OCC’s hoops, so they created a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, thanks in part to Chief Running Mouth, Elizabeth Warren.
And having dealt with them on numerous occasions, we were better off with just the OCC. Of course, we would be even better off with monkeys and typewriters, but that’s neither here nor there.
At this point, you might be wondering what in the Wide World of Fuck this has to do with student loan debt. It’s all in the approach. Since Leftists had success in convincing people the mortgage loans they signed their names to were all a part of the evil cabal of Big Banking, they’re trying the same thing with student loan debt. They’re even using the same language. On the plus side, it’s one of the rare times Leftists actually recycle, so yay, I guess.
If the Social Media Platform Known As Twitter is any indication, this tactic is working again. Young adults who know there are 90 gajillion genders but think 2 + 2 equals potato (hat tip to Simon Miller for that turn of a phrase, by the way) are being allowed to straddle the line between being competence and incompetence simultaneously. You know, just like Kamala Harris. And invariably, they’re going to get what they want because Leftists are never ones to let a crisis (especially one of their own creation) go to waste.
Others have astutely pointed out President Tamland’s student loan forgiveness is a big gift to the banks who lent the money in the first place, which it most certainly is. And others have also pointed out the loan isn’t forgiven so much as being pushed onto other people. This is also correct. But what I don’t see too many people talking about is what the next step could be.
And having seen this shit play out before, I think I have a pretty good idea of what’s next.
I see this playing out in one of two ways. First, some DC douchebag with more vices than brains may try to put student loan debt under the umbrella of the CFPB. In a demented kind of way, this makes sense. After all, the CFPB is charged with holding big banks accountable for predatory loan practices (even if they don’t understand regular loan practices), so it’s not that much of a leap to suggest they devote a portion of their efforts on student loans.
Second, and the one I think is more likely, some DC douchebag is going to suggest the creation of a brand new federal agency like the CFPB, but with a focus on student loan practices. Remember, one of my Immutable Laws of Life is a bureaucracy’s sole purpose is to find ways to make itself more expansive and incapable of being removed. So, what’s to say a CFPB II: Electric Boogaloo is out of the question?
I mean, aside from me, of course.
In either case, expect the federal government to get more involved with fucking up student loans in the near future. Just try to act surprised when it happens.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Recently, the Boy Scouts of America announced it would change its name to Scouting America effective February 2025. Although there are reasons and speculation as to why, one of the main reasons came from the President and CEO Roger Krone. In an attempt to get with the times and promote inclusion, Krone said the name change would allow Scouts to “bring their authentic self” to the organization.
Because as we all know, the Boy Scouts have a merit badge for being inauthentic.
Although the idea of increasing membership to the Boy Scouts isn’t a bad idea, the Leftist underpinnings of the concept of an authentic self making their way into the organization is. More after the break.
authentic self
What the Left thinks it means – who you really are outside of the constraints the world puts on you
What it really means – enabling self-delusion
There was a concept in the 70s where people had to “find themselves,” which often meant adults would leave their families to chase their dreams (i.e. act irresponsibly without fear of familial interference). This lead to a lot of broken homes, hard feelings, and an entire generation of kids who had to grow up without one of their parents. (Shout out to my fellow Gen Xers!)
Like bell bottoms, disco, and only 3 channels on TV, finding ourselves fell out of favor. And like two out of the three of these things, finding ourselves came back. Only this time, finding ourselves took on a whole new dimension. No longer were we restricted to what the kids like to call reality. We could find ourselves in whatever the fuck we wanted! And if we tried to point out you can’t really be a character from your favorite cartoon because it’s a fucking cartoon, well we’re just preventing you from being your authentic self.
And now you know why I’m not a fan of recycling, especially recycling really bad ideas.
At the heart of the concept of an authentic self is a lie people tell themselves. There are some things we can’t change through science, ideology, or self-delusion. For example, if you’re a 6’6″ 390 pound lineman from the Chicago Bears, you’re bound to know what it’s like not to reach the Super Bowl. But along with that, you are a tall, heavy man. You cannot will your way into becoming a 6 inch fairy named SparklyAss. The best you can do is pretend.
And that’s the operative word, Mr. Spock: pretend. As in not real. As in make believe. As in the approval numbers for President Brick Tamland.
So many of the “authentic self” crowd have bought into the lie for any number of reasons. One of the most prevalent ones I think is the need for attention. Thanks to the great enabler that is social media, narcissism is becoming a major issue in our society. And what better way to make yourself the center of attention than to insist the world cater to your whims? If you don’t like the way your life is, create a better one and make the world adopt it, even as they adopt their own. Before you know it, we had to come up with new pronouns, more genders than Baskin Robbins has flavors, and an increasing level of self-importance and entitlement.
And you don’t even have to be someone who promotes the concept of an authentic self. Just go to YouTube and look up arrest videos with entitled people. But that’s a flaming dumpster fire for another time.
The point is it’s impossible to have an authentic self if you have to lie to make it authentic. But societal pressures make that kind of lying acceptable. After all, if you’re not hurting anyone, it should be okay, right?
Wellllll…not so much.
The problem with narcissism is it’s never sated. The minute your star doesn’t shine as brightly as someone else’s, your world goes into freefall. And I’m not talking major incidents like a loved one dying, an accident with injuries, or a Madonna concert. I’m talking shit as minor as…getting your order wrong at Starbucks.
Apparently, a lot of people’s authentic selves are whiny bitches.
More to the point, though, is self-delusion and narcissism aren’t healthy traits. Granted, today’s version of health includes people so fat their shadows have triple chins, so healthy is a relative term. However, there are psychological aspects to both that can be long term and hard to overcome. The problem is people don’t want to overcome it. Ego is like crack, except it doesn’t show up on a drug screen. And thank God for that or I would be…in no trouble whatsoever. In fact, let’s never speak of the McDonalds interview where I asked the hiring manager when I could start slinging kangaroo burgers.
Meanwhile back at the point I was making, ego is a powerful drug that is just as habit-forming as crack. Although you can have a little ego without going all Charlie Sheen imitating Keith Richards, it’s important to keep a level head on your shoulders. A little ego boost can make your head swell pretty quickly. Then, before you know it, you’ll be looking for any excuse to satisfy your jones for attention.
And then you’ll look more and more like an asshole.
Some of the “authentic selves” advocates have reached peak assholery, but some just want to add a little spice to their lives. If you fall into the latter category, I have a question and I don’t want you to take this the wrong way. Have you considered getting a hobby? You know, something that will get you outside the house and allows you to meet actual people? Sure, you run the risk of having your personal fantasy disrupted by reality, but it’s worth it in the long run. Connecting with people, learning more about them and they about you, sharing genuine human contact, that shit’s good for you! And you can find the real you, not the “authentic self” you wish you could be.
The problem with that, to Leftists, is it empowers people to accept reality. A lot of Leftist rhetoric involves stretching the truth like Reed Richards in yoga pants, so anything that allows people to opt out of their reality is bad for them. So, they agree with everything and anything that will get suckers…I mean voters to agree with them.
Including the lineman who wants to be called SparklyAss.
And that’s all the “authentic self” crowd needs to keep their delusions alive. These people don’t need validation; they need emotional fulfillment in the real world. They need someone to say “I like you for you, not for who you wish to be.” Or at the very least they need someone to say “As great as your fantasy world is, the real world has much better graphics.”
Granted, some people will be harder to reach with this message than others. Just work on the ones you can and let the more extreme cases go, at least until they do something to harm themselves and others. Then, no amount of “authentic self” talk will save them from an authentic ass-whuppin.
Although I’ve never been a member of the Boy Scouts, I grew up respecting their basic tenets as a foundation for a good productive life. I want every child to experience scouting in one form or another, but doing it by violating the Boy Scouts’ basic principles isn’t the way to do it. That’s selling out in the hopes it attracts more potential Scouts. And it’s not going to work because a) it will turn off people who would have sent their boys to the Boy Scouts before the more inclusive version took over, and b) it will turn off secular parents who might be attracted to the inclusion, but turned off by the religious overtones.
Quite the knot you’ve tied there, Boy Scouts. Is there a merit badge for fucking shit up so badly it ruins your brand in perpetuity? If not, you might want to make one. Just put a picture of Dylan Mulvaney holding a Bud Light on it and, boom, you’re done!