As we mentioned last week, Facebook dropped the ban hammer on a number of influential people aligned with the right, and covered themselves by using Louis Farrakhan as a sacrificial lamb. The plan backfired because mainstream white Republicans united and stood up for the mistreatment of their conservative allies. (I keed, I keed.) No, the plan backfired because prominent blacks like Snoop Dogg, a Nation of Islam follower for a decade with over 30 million Facebook followers, called out the banning of Farrakhan as unacceptable, called on his supporters to flood their own feeds with Farrakhan sermons, and dared Facebook to ban him for doing so.
This puts Zuckerberg in an outstanding pickle. Of course, his isn't going to start banning Snoop or his millions of black fans. Nor can he simply re-instate Farrakhan without destroying the narrative of the bans being based on principle, rather than pro-Democrat political action. He will try to lay low and let it blow over. Hopefully Snoop doesn't relent. And he shouldn't; he is doing the right thing. He is employing loyalty and courage to take on a corporate behemoth. He is defending a friend who is being unpersoned. We should be so lucky to have such fighters on our side, willing to circle the wagons at the sight of provocation.
Let's not pretend that Mr. Dogg is acting out of some pure principle. He isn't defending the whites who were banned, and would likely not have anything nice to say about them. He's defending his own. While the mainstream right prattle on about principle, a single black celebrity rallies his troops against an enemy. White conservatives cling endlessly to principle. Can't they see that we no longer have a principled society? Perhaps it is nostalgia, or idealism, but probably it's just naivety. It's starting to appear that the major flaws of whites are naivety and disloyalty. (Greed perhaps being a third, but not so peculiar to whites alone.) Both might be expected characteristics of a people accustomed to a high-trust nation who find themselves in a morally decaying society. Naivety for the obvious reasons, and disloyalty because strong kinship and fealty systems aren't needed in a world with strong rule of law. Asians are known for their naivety too, even more so than occidentals, but are united by the strongest blood bonds on earth. The Chinese don't have magic dirt, they have magic blood.
The most confounding observation of the last few years was seeing how liberals would grip onto the thinnest of illusions...obvious lies. We start to suspect that they are evil - that is, that they actively pursue the untruth. And maybe that's so, but let's not discount the role of deep and widespread naivety among our people. Most of the lefties you encounter in your day-to-day life are actually decent people who are trying to help. They are just seriously, seriously misled by the faintest mirage of deception. We know from psychology that confirmation bias is universal; we all fall victim. Confirmation bias means it is difficult to unbelieve in something, basically. It's why most of the liberals still push on about Russia collusion, Trump tax returns, etc, even after it's absurdity has been thoroughly proven and it has become a parody of itself. Well, and think about it. If you had been whipped into a frenzy for two or three years, it would be very difficult to admit you'd been tricked. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, they say.
Now, keeping in mind how hard it can be to admit you were wrong about a particular incident or fact (like Russian collusion), think of how hard it would be to admit you were wrong about your fundamental assumptions about society, such as your belief that you live in a high-trust society. Your belief in the rule of law. Your belief that diversity is our strength, and that historically progress has only ever been held back by bigotry. Those are much bigger biases! The cacophony of lies and outrage we are subjected to endlessly seem like the work of evil, and I increasingly believe that to be true, but they also could just be one grand case of collective confirmation bias. The more the evidence indicates that the left's actions have fundamentally changed the society away from what they believe it to be, the more they respond with hysteria.
Much talk is given about race and IQ in the dissident right. Whites have a higher average IQ than blacks. Who cares? Isn't IQ supposed to be a measure of pattern-matching capability, more or less? The tests are done on paper, but what of the real world? Half the whites in this country couldn't see a societal pattern if it smacked them in the face. They are willfully and intentionally unseeing the patterns that they really really really don't want to see. That has to be the opposite of high IQ!
We should start thinking of IQ in terms of nominal and pragmatic IQs. (Or are we just re-inventing the concept of book smarts vs street smarts?) Nominal IQ is your ability to match patterns on a sheet of paper in a sterile environment. Pragmatic IQ is your ability to match patterns observed in nature which could impact you, your family, or your people. Supposedly, whites have one of the higher nominal IQs in the world. Well, our pragmatic IQs must be the lowest ... so low that they might actually be negative, given the ability of our mainstream society to clearly see imagined patterns while denying obvious real ones. The blacks do outrank us in this regard. They are not nearly as delusional as the whites, nor are the other immigrants. And nearly as delusional are the people on the right who say things like, "they better be careful calling for a race war; whites are the deadliest fighters on the planet." Yes, whites are very good at force projection when co-ordinated in a high-trust, lawful society. All indications are that whites in a low-trust multi-cultural setting fail miserably, and will continue to do so until they wise up and learn some of the values of courage and loyalty that Snoop Dogg displayed this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment