Friday, June 12, 2015

50 Shades of Skywalker: Black Rape Culture & Keep off the Grass

I recently encountered some human biodiversity people whining about different "generations." Here's one whining about the Boomers in Did Baby Boomers Wreck Western Civilization, and here's a more upscale British agent whining about the Millennials in Generational splits.

Hypocrisy is no stranger to various theories of materialistic predestination like the modern racial realists espouse; for example, their oft-cited impossibility of civilizing the negro in 150 years should make it similarly impossible for them to grant society the power to acculturate "the Boomers" or "Generation X" inside much-shorter period. And yet, they cling to that stuff so desperately, revealing themselves to be merely a different sort of slave to the subtle corporate message than the Cathedral-bound hordes they think they're rejecting.

Therein lies a lesson to us all: when you feed off of the corporate news, even by diametrically opposing it, you're being guided by people much smarter than you into thinking you've discovered the "omissions" they've left there to pique your interest. You're no different than a child who thinks he's clever for finding a plastic Easter egg in an overlooked corner. Somebody put that there for you to find just so you'd think you were clever.

The arbitrary subsets of people considered "generations" by corporate media are interesting generalizations. It raises the question: if you call a certain time period a generation, and decide what songs and movies and clothing and cars and viewpoints to popularize for purchase during that period, is that generation inherently different than other generations for liking those things? And, if later generations' primary perceptions of the earlier generations are based on product choices, including movies and television shows that portray a correlation between speech patterns and perspectives, is the later generation more intelligent for choosing the "right" answer and diagnosing, in the earlier generation, certain internal mental states? Short answer, no.

But anyway, in response to their complaints about whichever make-believe "generation," I posted something I've often been able to use in such situations:
God knows you're correct. Millenials love luxury. They've always had bad manners, contempt for authority; and they show disrespect for their elders. Instead of doing real exercise and real work, they chatter away, and they don't show respect to people the way earlier generations did--they no longer even do basic things, like getting to their feet when an older person enters the room.

And of course they contradict their parents, babble mindlessly whenever they host company for their parties, eat too much, and don't pay attention to people in positions of authority.
That's an example of Socrates being a myopic fool, but you can find similar arguments throughout human history, as people think, over and over again, that they're discovering something uniquely good and/or horrible about any particular make-believe "generation" of people ("generation" in the modern consumer-product sense, not in the organic, cyclical sense). The quotes work for any illusory subset of people termed a "generation." Whether you're complaining about the bad music your parents liked or the bad music your children like, you're missing the point about the bad music you like, and how you were entitled at both ends, which made entitled judges from previous or later generations seem justified when they criticized you in turn.

Could Disney 2015 possibly be worse than George Lucas 1999? Could George Lucas 1999 possibly be worse than George Lucas 1977? And perhaps most importantly of all, could George Lucas 1977 possibly be worse than Nowlan 1928?

I've used the paraphrased Socrates quote above across several blogs offering similar complaints about this or that generation. Usually the quote seems to be going along with the general mood of things, so it just fades in with the normal comments of people complaining about old people/young people. We've looked at Akino Kure's blog before in On the Necessity of Trails. You can tell he's good at what he does, because he quietly deleted my Socrates reference rather than allow any of his target audience to accidentally read it and accidentally draw a connection, and he didn't vocalize his reason for doing so because the Socrates comparison is easy enough for even his readers to grasp. In that way, the disappearance was like an unfortunate drug interaction along with revelations of recent depression, or a terrible automobile/small plane crash due to inclement weather.

The Ex-Army guy linked above, by contrast, left it there because he didn't understand it. As Alfred E. Neuman said: what, me Socrates?


One of those grandly-obvious-yet-somehow-not-obvious ideological collisions is still being postponed in the lala-land of corporate media, namely, African-derived rape of European-derived women. The stereotypical sign-carrying yahoo--the chubby white college girl--cries for justice in all things, rallying no small number of genuine citizen supporters as she rails against rape culture and police mistreatment of the African-blooded, and yet she's willfully blind to actual rape culture, which shows the vast majority of rapes being committed by black men against white women. The silence on the issue is one of those deafening ones, given the large black elephant in the room, and it almost seems like deliberate malfeasance when the chubby white college girl complains about the middle class white college men who almost never statistically rape her, as compared to the lower class black men who statistically rape and/or kill her in hyperwhelming proportions (like, 800% higher or whatever).

Like all statistics, this poses an obvious problem for people who live solely in order to employ statistics (albeit poorly gathered, fabricated, or wholly out-of-context ones) to justify special treatment. The entire miasmatic narrative of the post-Great-War period (in which government intelligence agencies began fabricating modern "social movements") would be shattered by the attempt to reconcile various pay-gap fancies with rape-gap ones.

For feminists, the response has been--after decades and decades of violent rape and rape/murder being so heavily black-predominated--to just pretend there is no correlation. At the level of the university or the think tank, that's easily done as part of the job; for the simpleton news-absorber hitting retweet, though, it takes a little bit of internal gymnastics to retain cognitive balance. And that's simple enough to understand--we do that about pretty much everything around here.

What's so troubling about it? Well, could white feminists survive in black society without the protection of white men? Will encouraging white college men not to rape cause black dropouts not to rape? It's the normal ISIS v. WASP dilemma, where it's impossible for many people to contemplate the question of whether they're biting the hand that feeds them because it's the hand that feeds them--because they're afraid of encountering that other hand; the one that isn't so gentle. And to add to the irony, the "anti rape" set tends to also be the "anti gun" set, which theoretically makes them even less likely to be able to defend themselves from actual rape and murder, given a non-WASP/patriarchal society.

Absent a lotta lotta educational conditioning, you can't develop that kind of perspective. And western governments have been pretty fabulous at doing that. The result has been a massive, marvelous work of social engineering.


Like the proverbial toddlers happily discovering the Easter egg and declaring themselves inventors, the next phase of dunces has spent many a year analyzing the "illogical disparity" between anti-rape and anti-race proponents. They've been delighted with what they've found: the aforementioned years of social engineering left large trails across the government landfill, showing quite clearly where the entire elite culture--corporations, universities, government agencies, children's education, employer policy, law enforcement emphasis--has worked together to highlight, and downplay, various bogeymen. As a result, the reactionaries can easily prove that the meddling occurred, and that it occurred with deliberate purpose and produced deliberate profits (and concomitant unfairness).

The resulting calls for racial segregation, vigilante justice, chattel female citizenship, and other blowback aimed at the delusional cultural-promoters, are sadly predictable. Confronted with such ridiculous illogic and hypocrisy, it can almost seem reasonable to counterstrike. And yet--what if the social engineers who created that movement were intelligent enough to have predicted the very counterreaction we've been seeing? E.g., what if the intelligence agencies who promoted bourgeois feminism in the first place wanted to achieve exactly this result?

Said intelligence agencies certainly have that capability. After all, they did get millions of people to like Rothko's work even when those people were not being paid to do so. If they can do that, they can certainly drum up a bunch of white academics to crusade against "rape culture" while simultaneously ignoring black-on-white rape, in order to infuriate white non-rapists into responding with an anti-white-girl, anti-black-guy message. The profits are as predictable as those of bourgeois feminism: another century lost to the battle between passionately fact-averse subgroups.

Over a century and a half ago, Mrs. Jellyby satirized the connection between suffragettes and colonialism, showing us how the world's great bankers would be continuing to use intra-hegemonic domestic spats to smooth over another few hundred years of warfare. The challenge to would-be feminists and vampiric carpetbaggers, then, was to make the just choice, rather than the selfish or compromising one. And the resulting combination of selfish compromises has been about as pleasant--in terms of raped pussies and bombed cities--as were the years between Antietam and Normandy.

Easy fodder, this, for the human biodiversity people--as they handily forget that, the last time they were in charge, things went just about as well. Were those stupid, selfish, short-sighted, revolutionary Baby Boomer hippies responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act, and other associated legal detritus, that ruined Our Cities? Perhaps so, but their sin was only collectively punishing the entrenched white populations who really truly deserved it because said populations had only been justifiably punishing the previously-entrenched white populations who really truly deserved it, and so forth. Maybe it was all the fault of Napoleon, and/or various French revolutionaries, who can be considered flaming liberals depending on how you twist the knife--but what about the friggin' Crusades? The whitest, male-est, most staunchly Christian-est and most nationalist period of European history was characterized by various Popes using make-believe domestic spats to trick western Europe out of colossal blood and wealth, in order to settle banking rivalries with various Middle Eastern factions. And throughout it all was white-on-white genocide and slavery, including intra-Anglo.

We must remember that The Dark Ages™ wasn't as bad as we now imagine it, and we've done so before. Even the peasants had strong kinship networks, relatively autonomous households, merry jigs, organic feasts, and all that good stuff. But the average medieval peasant hut that we study is the equivalent of the employee cafeteria and lounge at Google headquarters--very nice, but it's not comparable to different corners of the kingdom.

Around and around it goes, giving us endless choices. Will we bathe in selfish, incompletely-justified wrath? Are we able to admit that we were wrong last time around? This time around? Are we ready to move on, and to forgive others their need to feel justified and wrathful?

Did we like the big movie when we were younger, before we realized it was a plagiarized mess no better or worse than the big movie now? And can we recognize that without embarrassment? Have we learned to stop attending ourselves, or do we still try to squeeze some regressive "innocence" out of the barest connection we can find? And if we've learned not to go, can we so avoid the experience without condemning a new "generation" for thinking it's all so very cool?


  1. I have no memories of anyone complaining about mine and my parents' generation (1940s-1970s) in the eastern block. They were the children of winners, and were raised on the premise of developing their fullest potential. The conformity on this side of the pond is staggering in comparison.

    1. In America, complaining about other generations than one's own is viewed as a sign of well developed intelligence, while complaining about one's own generation is viewed as a sign of humility and insight.

  2. Yeah I never understood the interest in splitting hairs. who cares about generational differences? All people in all times are equally awful (but the pretty girls are excused)! Only their societies can be marginally better or worse, but that's that.

    1. No matter how many places like this that I look at, I continue to wonder if any of them are substantially "better" or "worse" overall. There's always a mix of war and peace, torture and luxury, celebrated vacuousness and forgotten worthiness. What a useful crucible, really.