Sunday, January 21, 2018

The mind-boggling relatioship between feminists and Islam

Islam, both the religion and the culture, is pretty much everything that modern feminists hate and loudly and constantly speak against.

Islam, at large, imposes dress codes onto women (but not onto men). Islam tells women to cover up, and in general there is a widespread culture and mentality that women who do not cover up are promiscuous sluts. Very often Muslim women who do not dress appropriately are shunned, shamed and castigated (sometimes even physically, especially in Islamic countries where that's not illegal.) It is a very common sentiment among Muslims, especially those who live in Islamic countries or who have recently moved to the west from such countries, that not only are women who do not cover themselves up promiscuous sluts, but moreover raping them is acceptable because of that.

Modern feminists tell us all the time how women should be free to dress however they want, and that society must never impose any sort of dress code standards on women, and that it's abhorrent to even ask a woman who has been assaulted what she was wearing. A woman should be able to walk on the street however she wants, even naked if she so wants, without being harassed, assaulted, shamed or blamed. Therefore it would sound reasonable that feminists would heavily oppose the dress codes and social pressure of Muslim women.

Islamic culture is heavily patriarchal, in the traditional sense. The father is considered the head of the family, and sons are considered the main family line. Sons are considered more valuable than daughters, especially when it comes to preserving the family line, and for inheritance. By large, especially in Islamic countries, the word of a man is considered more trustworthy than the word of a woman. Even the holy scriptures of the religion directly state this (the most known passage telling how the word of one man is worth that of two women.) Given how heavily modern feminism opposes any sort of patriarchal system, where men are considered to be more important and above women, where men are the ones who run society and families, and where family lines are delineated by the males in the family, it would sound reasonable that feminists would heavily oppose Islamic culture.

In the same vein, Islam very widely engages in gender segregation, of the kind where men are pretty much free to go wherever they want and do whatever they want, but women may have limitations. Quite prominently, in most mosques strict gender segregation is enforced, where women are literally forced to sit on the back of the mosque, while men are free to sit wherever they want (which is eerily similar to the famous limits of where black people could sit in public transports in the 1950's America.) This is happening even in many mosques in the west. It would be reasonable to think that feminists would heavily oppose this segregation, especially given how one-sided it is (as it mainly puts limitations on women, not on men.)

Islam is by far and large extremely homophobic. Homosexuality is absolutely not tolerated in most Islamic countries, nor among Muslim communities even in the west. Even in the mildest of cases most Muslims oppose homosexuality and homosexuals (something that has been corroborated by poll after poll). In the most extreme cases homosexuals are persecuted, harassed and even killed (especially if the law of the land puts no deterrents on it.) Given how pro-homosexuality feminism is, and how anti-homophobia it is, and the extents to which it goes to defend homosexuals and their rights, it would sound reasonable that feminists would heavily oppose Islamic culture for being so deeply homophobic.

Yet, for some strange reason, none of that is true. Feminists do not oppose the deeply patriarchal, misogynist and homophobic Islamic culture, but on the contrary will defend it, and will do so very rabidly and with fervor. Their first line of defense is of course denial: They will deny that any of that is true. When the evidence is too overwhelming to be denied, they will start making up excuses. They will even go against everything they preach and actually defend the Islamic practice of dress codes for women, and shaming them for not adhering to those codes. Some will even "show support" by willingly subjecting themselves to these same dress codes. The rampant homophobia among Muslims is largely ignored and denied. It's not a subject that they like to talk much about.

Many feminists will even claim that Islam is a feminist religion, even though it's the complete opposite of it. This level of Orwellian double-think is just mind-boggling.

I think that, in the end, this shows how feminism doesn't actually care about women and oppressed minorities. Defending Islam to them simply a tool to create social pressure and gain control of the narrative. It's a useful tool to attack the western social structures. The actual people who feminists claim to fight for be damned.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

"It doesn't happen 100% of the time, therefore it doesn't happen at all"

There's a very strange idea some people have that if there's a claim that "thing X causes disease Y", that claim is refuted by finding even one single counter-example.

I recently watched a guy, a chain smoker, say that he knows lots of people who have smoked their entire lives and have not got lung cancer, therefore smoking does not the cause of lung cancer. Due to the context and the tone of voice I'm convinced that he was being completely serious, and that he genuinely believes that. I don't think he was joking, or trolling, or anything like that.

That is, in fact, a somewhat common sentiment among some people, and chances are that you have heard it too (or at least have heard of it indirectly).

And it's not like they are saying "I don't believe the science behind it" or something like that. It's always "I know people who haven't got it, therefore smoking doesn't cause it".

Of course it doesn't work like that. You could just as well say "I know lots of people who have got influenza and didn't die of it, therefore influenza doesn't kill people." Or "I know lots of people who have been obese their entire life and they do not have diabetes, therefore obesity does not cause diabetes."

If course "smoking causes lung cancer" is just a kind of shorthand for "smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer". Obviously it doesn't mean that if you smoke one cigarette you are 100% certain to get lung cancer. It's a risk, and the risk increases the more you smoke. Your chances of getting eventually lung cancer increases significantly compared to non-smokers (and this risk is really, really higher.)

Sometimes you hear the same argument in a kind of reverse form. In other words: "I know people who have never smoked in their entire lives, who got lung cancer." (You could just as well say "I know people who have never been obese who have diabetes.")

Of course it doesn't work like that either. The claim is not "only people who smoke get lung cancer". Again, it's about the risk: Non-smokers have a much lower probability of getting lung cancer (but this probability isn't zero.) Smokers have a much higher probability (but it isn't 100%.) Likewise obese people have a higher chance of developing diabetes than fit people (but this doesn't mean that fit people never, ever get diabetes. It's just much less likely.)

In either case the sentiment is just idiotic, and I have hard time understanding why people would think like that.

Friday, January 19, 2018

Predictions for the near future, part 5

Continuing a bit with the theme of "things that are already happening to a lesser degree, which will probably escalate to ridiculous extents in the near future":

Country after country will start legislating "equality" and "diversity" for corporations and for individuals, and enforcing these laws onto them via sanctions, fines, incarceration, and other forceful measures. Such things will include, among others:

* Gender and racial quotas in the form of percentages will be demanded. At least such-and-such percent of employees must have such-and-such inconsequential characteristics, such as what's between their legs, and what skin pigmentation they have. Such-and-such percentage of upper management must have such-and-such characteristics, and so on and so forth.

Indubitably such legislation will be discriminatory towards white men. In other words, the percentages are minimum percentages. It won't matter if a company exceeds those percentages. For example a company that hires exclusively women will be ok, because a legislated 50% will only be a minimum percentage, not an absolute one.

Corporations that are unable to meet those percentages for the sole reason that there aren't enough applicants will be punished anyway. These corporations might need to either start paying fines and suffer all other forms of penalties, or make "ghost" hires, ie. "hire" people with the required characteristics who don't actually do anything in the company. In other words, the company will be forced to essentially pay salary to people who don't actually work at the company or do anything productive within in, just to meet the required quotas.

* The "pay gap" will be (tried to be) removed by forcing companies to pay women a larger salary than to men, for the sole reason that they are women. Often this will mean cutting the salary of men, because they are men. Men, especially white men, will be discriminated against by the government by having companies pay them less salary than to other people. Existing equal pay legislation will be either ignored, explained away, amended, or repealed.

Companies will be forced by law to make regular reports on how they are implementing these measures.

* Companies will be forced by legislation to have "diversity officers", perhaps even assigned by the government itself. The exclusive role of these "diversity officers" is to make sure that the regressive leftist agenda is being enforced within the company, and that enough people with given external characteristics are being hired. They will enforce speech codes, and codes of conduct, and they will be tasked to enforce these codes by issuing warnings and fines, and even having the power to fire people, backed by the government, because of breaching such codes. They will have zero interest in the success of the company itself, and their sole purpose is to enforce hiring quotas and codes of conduct.

It will be, essentially, a regressive leftist Stasi.

* Freedom of speech and opinion will be restricted in an ever-increasing manner, both for individuals and for companies. What is considered punishable speech will become more and more ridiculous as time passes, with even minor innocuous remarks being considered unacceptable. Outright criticism of the regressive leftist ideology will, of course, become highly punishable. Criticizing immigration policies, and especially criticizing Islam, will become highly punishable, even with incarceration.

* Censorship will become legislated. Currently the traditional media largely censors itself voluntarily, but this will be eventually escalated to such extents that it will change from de facto to de jure censorship, and will apply to all forms of communication, not just the traditional media outlets. For example, reporting on sex crimes perpetrated by immigrants will become illegal, in any form, using any platform of communication.

Regressive leftist totalitarianism

One archetypal aspect of a totalitarian regime or ideology is the total control of everything that happens in society, from the highest echelons of government and industry, all the way down to the most mundane everyday lives of individual people. The totalitarian regime is upheld by constantly watching what people do, and making them live in fear and submission by punishing even the slightest signs of dissent.

Of course the problem arises: With millions of people to control, how exactly do you keep track of all individual people? Even a government cannot possibly have so much personnel as to watch the actions of every individual person in the country.

The answer is to, effectively, "recruit" informants from among the people. In other words, have people watch other people, and report any sign of dissent or misbehavior. With enough propaganda and social engineering, a significant portion, perhaps even a majority, of people can be effectively "recruited" to become informants for the regime.

North Korea is a perfect example of this. From recent history, the former East Germany was, possibly, an even more perfect example of this.

This is exactly how East Germany succeeded in keeping their totalitarian regime for so long (about 40 years). People spying on other people, and having enormous amounts of informants, was everyday life in the country. Consider for example these paragraphs from the Wikipedia page about the Stasi:
"Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras. Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated."
"The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time that East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants. About one out of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history. The Stasi employed one full-time agent for every 166 East Germans. The ratios swelled when informers were factored in: counting part-time informers, the Stasi had one informer per 6.5 people."
People ratting out other people to the authorities is one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism. Naturally the regressive left is using the exact same tactics. For example, consider this article: Williams College Students Can Report Each Other for 'Making Comments on Social Media' About Religion or Politics
"Williams College is one of at least 100 campuses with a system in place for students to report each other for saying or doing something slightly offensive. These trivially disturbing occurrences are known as "bias incidents"—and at Williams, virtually anything could qualify."
The scary thing is that these are people who in the near future will become politicians, law-makers, judges, police officers, CEO's, and teachers.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Why is fighting the regressive left a lost cause?

I wrote in my previous blog post how fighting the regressive left might be a lost cause. They are gaining ground everywhere, they are infecting every aspect of society, and country after country is becoming more and more totalitarian, and our rights are being eroded more and more, and there seems to be no end to this. The opposition to this madness seems to have little to no effect.

But why is this? Why is the regressive left so effective, while the opposition (ie. mainly those who subscribe to mostly classical liberal values and universal human rights and freedoms) seems to have little to no effect?

I have many times alluded to the regressive leftist social justice ideology being a cult. I don't think this is just rhetoric. I really think that the ideology has a striking resemblance to a cult. And that's the key.

That key is: Organizing regressive leftist social justice warriors is like herding sheep, while organizing their critics is like herding cats.

When social justice warriors want to fight for their cause, flocks of their brainwashed followers will join that fight. It's like a hive mind. There is little to no dissent or criticism. No dissent is allowed, and for the most part, nobody in the cult even wants to dissent or critique. They have been brainwashed to always support the ideology, in all aspects, everywhere, without doubt, without dissent, without criticism. Even if the odd individual were to present a dissenting opinion, that traitor is quickly crucified and bullied into submission (and given that even such dissenters have been conditioned into following the cult, they will almost invariably submit and concede.)

The critics ("skeptics", "liberalists", or whatever you want to call them), however, are individualist independent free-thinkers at heart. For good or bad. Yes, even for bad sometimes.

When the youtuber Sargon of Akkad recently delved into this problem and threw the idea out there that perhaps we should start actually organizing and creating a coordinated movement to combat the totalitarian cult that's infecting every aspect of society, he got immediately attacked by tons of people on his own camp. Many of these people did so for rather stupid reasons (accusing him of "collectivism", a complete misunderstanding of what term actually means.)

And that, I think, is one of the major problems. The "skeptics" are independent free-thinkers to such an extent that sometimes they will be skeptic to detrimental lengths, even attacking their own, sometimes for the stupidest of reasons. Like said, trying to organize the "skeptics" is like trying to herd cats, for good and sometimes for bad.

I hate being so pessimistic and fatalistic, but I see no future for our society. The totalitarian regressive leftists are too well organized, their mentality is too cult-like and sheep-like, and they have already succeeded in infecting all echelons of society, and there seems to be no end to it, and the opposition is too powerless to do anything. Country after country is already chipping away at people's basic freedoms, one by one. At the same time, country after country is welcoming with open arms the very thing that they should hate, ie. the most truly patriarchal misogynist homophobic totalitarian religion there is. It will only be a matter of time before country after country becomes dominated by that religion, and the oppression of women, homosexuals and non-believers will start in full force. We can kiss goodbye to our rights and freedoms.

Ironically, a good portion of the social justice cult will still consider it a good thing, while being forced to wear trash bags, and while gays are being thrown off roofs.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Fighting the regressive left might be a lost cause

The youtuber Sargon of Akkad made recently a video where he points out how effective the tactics of the regressive leftist social justice warriors are, while their opposition has only minimal to no effect in society, and this is a problem.

I think he's right. As I have been saying time and again, institution after institution, organization after organization, school after school, authority after authority, and even government after government, is in increasing manner adopting regressive leftist authoritarianism, and the subsequent eroding of basic human rights and liberties, and increasing the persecution of "wrongthinkers". Entity after entity is restricting free speech more and more, and punishing people for dissenting opinions. Entity after entity is becoming increasingly misandrist, anti-white, xenophilic and islamophilic. Entity after entity is starting to brainwash children into hating themselves and western values.

Not a week goes by without yet another article being published about a school or university enacting absolutely incredible new policies either restricting the freedoms of their students, or enacting pure propaganda onto them (which is especially heinous when we are talking about very young children). Or yet another organization, or even government, restricting people's freedoms or punishing people for expressing their opinions. At the same time these same entities are excusing crimes made by migrants, and blaming the hosting countries.

The social justice ideology is indeed infecting everything, in an ever increasing manner. There don't seem to be any signs of it stopping, or even slowing down. Your rights are being eroded day after day.

What exactly has the opposition to this madness achieved? Not much, really.

Has any government so far reversed their changes to increased totalitarianism? Has any government repealed their recently-introduced restrictions to people's freedoms? Has any university, school, or other organization reversed their ever-increasing restrictions, rules and propaganda? (There are a few universities that have refused to go into the madness, but I don't remember ever hearing a university adopting the principles and rules and later repealing them.) Has any corporation, which has famously adopted social justice principles, reversed their policies?

If it has ever happened, I have never heard of it. I doubt it has happened (because if it had, the critics would be lauding it. I don't remember any such thing.)

The most that's being done is a few political speakers touring universities, and critics making YouTube videos. But that's about it. They have little to no effect on anything. Not really. They may sway the opinions of a part of the population, but they have too little effect to affect anything of the abovementioned organizations and entities.

Let's face reality: There's no denying it, the social justice cult tactics are frighteningly effective. For some reason it's an extremely virulent ideology, and their tactics to spread it all across society are extremely effective, and we are seeing its results. The critics, on the other hand, may make a lot of noise, but they have little to no effect on what's happening. Our basic rights are being eroded, and our civilization is being slowly destroyed, and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it. Their tactics are much more effective than ours. Their ideology is much more virulent than ours. That's just a sad reality.

What to do about it? I have no idea, really. Maybe there is nothing that can be done. Maybe the future of the modern western society is doomed. I seriously fear that western country after western country will become an Islamic state, and modern society as we know it will crumble. The few western countries that do not willingly convert to Islam will eventually be forcefully invaded by the surrounding recently-converted Islamic countries. At least in Europe. I can't even begin to guess how this will affect America. But at least in Europe, I suppose you'd better enjoy your basic human rights while you still can. It's not going to last.

Perhaps in some countries something else will happen before that. Perhaps enough people will get fed up with all this that they will start voting for the extreme right-wing political parties. Which aren't much better than the extreme left, really. It will be a complete shitshow.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The attack against Trump by the leftist media continues

For over a year now the American leftist media has been in a constant war against Donald Trump. It's non-stop anti-Trump propaganda, day and night. And there is no end in sight. If Trump ends up being president for the full 8 years he can be, I'm convinced that the leftist media will continue its attacks every single day, to the last day, for the full 8 years, non-stop. They are obsessed.

Since past attacks have failed to have any effect, their latest attempt has been to get some psychiatrists to argue that Trump isn't mentally fit for office, and should be impeached because of that.

One should note that since these are actual professional psychiatrists, what they are doing is against the American Psychiatrist Association code of ethics. Said code states:
"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."
That's not even going into the fact that advocating the overthrow of the government is against the sedition laws of the country (which, for some reason, the government seems completely unwilling to enforce.)

But of course for the regressive left anything goes.