There’s No Privilege, Only Class.

First of all, let’s get our definitions straight.

Privilege: An unearned advantage given to a group or individual based on characteristics beyond their control.

Benevolent Discrimination: A benefit given to a group or individual for adhering to certain parameters that restrict their freedom. May offer an advantage or merely level the field in that area.

Class: A social structure where the population is divided into categories based on their material, social and genetic wealth.

Financial Classes: Divide caused by income. Include Upper, Middle, Lower and Welfare.

Social Classes: Divide caused by social roles. Include Governing/Ruling, Enforcing, Aristocratic, Bourgeois, Working and Slaves.

Function Classes: Divide caused by social dependence. Include Free and Dependent.

And for the record I am not a Marxist or even left-leaning. Sometimes people make excellent observations and come up with very poor solutions.

So, seeing as there are so many nuances to racism, agism, homophobia or transphobia, let’s work with a supposed case of systemic privilege  that is fairly clear cut: sexism. The core definition of sexism is merely discrimination against someone due to their (perceived) gender. Some feminists would further restrict this definition to state that sexism can only be institutional, therefore individuals can only be sexist on behalf of the institution and any sexism against the institutional balance is merely individual discrimination. I shall humour this, but being such a wishy-washy definition, I shall further specify it. Individual sexism (little “s”) is where an individual acts in favour of or against an entire gender or another individual based on gender, whereas institutional Sexism big “S”) is where the Governing or Enforcing class act in favour of or against an entire gender, or where an individual or a group of people act against an entire gender or an individual based on gender and their actions are condoned, enforced or promoted by the Governing or Enforcing class. This specification avoids the circular logic present in the original argument, whereby it is proven women are victims as the sexism experienced is institutionalized, where no evidence is provided to said institutionalization except that “women experience institutional sexism and men don’t” or that “misogyny is institutionalized”. Instead, where the Governing and Enforcing classes do not promote, enforce or condone a behaviour, it shall be considered an individual act. And if you have a problem with the rule of majority or with the majority’s choice of cultural or social behaviours, then maybe you should reconsider whether you wish for free-agency or democracy before you start calling the majority a governing institution that needs correcting.

Moving on.

So firstly we have an interesting comparison between Gender Privilege and Benevolent Sexism. The given narrative is that as men are the privileged group, the sexism they benefit from is Institutional, Bona-Fide Sexism at the expense of women, whereas as women are the oppressed group, the sexism they benefit from is merely Benevolent Discrimination that hurts nobody and often further oppresses women. Of course, we would need to prove that. Within the standard narrative, belief in female oppression justifies belief in women as an oppressed class, which justifies belief in men as oppressors, which justifies belief in female oppression. Of course, this argument in practice is weak at best and circular at worst. So, how about we break the circle and instead use the cleaned up definition, that focuses exclusively on Governing and Enforcing actions to determine Institutionality and on whether the benefit is liberating or oppressive to determine discrimination? Well, then we have an interesting result, it turns out that men are also oppressed by the Governing and Enforcing classes. This is often rephrased as “the Patriarchy hurts men too”, but it isn’t quite so simple. For there to be an Institutional System all men benefit from, then all men should benefit from it. Instead, we find that the men who are hurt by the Governing and Enforcing classes do not, in fact, receive compensation or another form of privilege from said classes. For example, if we were to argue the existence of a Patriarchal rape culture, then men would almost exclusively benefit where domestic violence and rape are taken to court and reviewed by the Enforcers. In reality, male perpetrators of statutory rape get worse sentences, punished even when both individuals were under age or when the sex is legal but any acts on the side are not, whereas victims of women pedophiles more likely to be disbelieved than trusted and female perpetrators can even claim child support off the victim; whether the victim or the perpetrator, the male in any domestic violence case is more likely to be arrested, despite there being 0.8m annual cases of domestic violence where men are victims,shockingly close to the 1.2m where women are; in false-rape allegations there is often no consequence to the libelerin actual male-on-female rape cases the perpetrator is almost always incarcerated for a very long period of time and kept on a registry to prevent future violations (hence why rape is down 85% since the 70s), whereas female-on-male cases are viewed as hard to argue due to legal definitions and sentences are lenient, despite the fact that even asking a female alleged rape victim to provide evidence is viewed as too much by some and that her word should always be taken at face-value. No, the system isn’t perfect. Yes, cases of past trauma or escalation are hard to tackle in court. But, on the whole, as men are perceived as inherently strong and violent and have, as far as we’re aware, committed most rapes historically, the law responds by being harsher on men than on women. In other words, depending on your perspective, the Governing and Enforcing classes are either acting appropriately (if you believe that men’s historically higher rape, assault and violence figures are grounds for unequal treatment) or overwhelmingly against men (if you believe all humans should be treated equally regardless of perceived gender and historical crime rates). Likewise, if you look at most cases of unequal treatment you see an even spread, where generally the treatment is different, but equally damaging, but where the treatment occasionally favours either group based on (perceived, real, stereotyped or politically correct) assumptions about their traits and past habits.

However, what about those cases where a man gets a short sentence, a wrist-slap, for a crime he obviously committed? Or where a woman is portrayed as inciting violence, despite a lack of evidence? Well, these cases tend to involve high-profile, respected or loved, incredibly wealthy men and a woman who is lower-profile, less respected, loved or known or less wealthy. In cases where such a man commits any crime, the sentence is normally lenient, especially if the victims are not as important as them. In cases where a high-profile, respected or loved, incredibly wealthy woman commits a crime, again, the sentence is lenient. In cases where the female victim is higher profile, more respected, loved or known or wealthier, the sentence is usually higher, often proportionate to the man’s own respect, profile and wealth. In short, upper class men get an unfair advantage, not based on their masculinity, but based on their power, status and wealth. It isn’t Sexism, it’s just power and wealth buying a get-out-of-jail-free card for whomever desires to commit a crime against a “lesser” human.

However, lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater, it is important to admit that the class structure does benefit some over others. Class discrimination is designed to favour the most powerful and allow them to retain their power. In Western society we have progressed from a capitalist society to a plutocratic one. This means that the main factor in determining class is wealth. A way of determining how true this is, is that people can move from one Social or Function class to another, but only within their income bracket, whereas if you remain wealthy your Social and Function class is almost guaranteed. Therefore, simply be becoming wealthy, you can guarantee yourself a permanent place in the Aristocratic and Independent classes, with a greater possibility of joining the Enforcing or the Governing classes than that afforded to the poor. However, when a wealthy person loses their money, regardless of prior fame and independence, they soon become dependent and, if like with some athletes they have also lost their means of making money, are stripped of their social class. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the cycling in and out of politicians and celebrities.

Therefore, the group of people that class discrimination will protect are the wealthy first and foremost. Those who are socially powerful or independent always fall before the wealthy classes and wealth can buy you power and independence. And, as a plutocratic society develops from the inheritance systems of a capitalist society, this means that money generally stays in families. The West was built on the successes of the Age of Empires, the period spanning from the 1600s right to the middle of the 20th century, reaching it’s pinnacle with the Victorian Empire and British Commonwealth. So important were the Empires to the foundation of the Western World that even ex-colonies are still financially, politically and socially tied with their original owners. And the British Empire, the largest and most influential of all, lives on across the World. Americanization is merely a continuation of the Anglicization that started in the 1600s. The Commonwealth is still viewed as important even though we cast it aside in favour of the European Union. English language, ideas and people are the foundation of our technological and medical advances, even when these are now carried out by countries that could easily become independent. So, if class discrimination in a plutocratic society means keeping wealth in the family and in the country, then modern class discrimination would result in an abundance of wealthy men, of White and Jewish descent, of American and British culture and education, who were walked through their education and integration into society with a silver spoon between their lips. Which is exactly the case. They are not powerful because modern society favours men. They are powerful because modern society favours the able-bodied, heterosexual, first born sons of wealthy and socially influential people. Outside of the Upper Classes, being a man offers no surplus of advantages, rather, it offers a few advantages and a few disadvantages, just like being a woman. If the Upper Classes wanted to favour men, we wouldn’t see people needing to fight to move outside their financial and social class. Wealth being their defining characteristic, the Upper Classes (Governing, Enforcing and Aristocratic, in social terms) would simply offer money and jobs directly to men who met the criteria. Who would get in the way of the people who, collectively, own the banks, the big corporations, the farms, the military and the land? It would be easy for them to overwhelmingly and openly favour men. No, they won’t favour men outside their own class for one simple reason: half the world’s population is male. Even using very liberal statistics for what constitutes a disabled person, a queer person or a transgender person, around 45% of the world’s population still makes the cut. And in Western countries, where at the least about half of the population is White, that gives us 22.5% of the population who would be “privileged”. That is 71,325,000 people in the USA. 14,422,500 in the UK. That’s far too many people for the Upper Classes to share their wealth and power with. That would allow for massive social mobility, a worse chance for their descendants, enough people to need a democratic vote. And preservation of the status quo is not a democratic thing.

However, modern ideologies completely ignore this. They go one of two ways. Either they look for a scapegoat and then do nothing but complain, or they fight against a scapegoat someone else has found for them. In the first case they appear to do nothing. And, on an individual level, this is true. However, as a group they further beliefs about said scapegoat and encourage others to adopt the scapegoat. Neo-Nazis pick Jews, Communists pick Capitalists, the poor pick the police and the police pick the criminals. And by far the most widely accepted scapegoat is the White, heterosexual man. This makes sense because whenever we look at the rich and powerful, whenever we look at those who make and enforce the law, that is what we see. Capitalists, criminals, enforcers, Jews, Whites, men, heterosexuals. However, as discussed, extending this supposed “privilege” to the rest of society doesn’t work out. It is only the wealthy that run the show. And the reason these scapegoats aren’t actively refuted? Well, then somebody might start wondering who is actually to blame for an unjust law, for a violent assault, for poverty. As long as the population finds its own red-herrings, then the ruling class won’t need to plant any information, enforce any obedience or be seen to hurt anyone. The use of these scapegoats is not opposed or attacked by the ruling elite because the ruling elite benefits from their existence. And if that isn’t the very definition of something being condoned by the Enforcing class, I don’t know what is.

The other advantage of the scapegoats is that they rest somewhere between visible and intangible. There are enough people of various races, faiths, social groups, political sets, etc, for most people to see them, to read about them, to talk about them. Looking at men and women, we will almost certainly have a daily reminder of the existence of both. However, when we latch onto a scapegoat we turn a broad category of people into an intangible thing. Using the example of men and women, we are to believe there is an intangible, unobservable Patriarchy that benefits all men, especially White and straight men, bar the one or two we know personally to not benefit from it. It is assumed, though few people have had the complete social experience of both genders, that all else being equal men have it better and women have it worse. That a man who fails had more advantages, or enough distinct advantages to give him an edge over a woman who fails. That a man who succeeds should have his success questioned. That a woman who succeeds, even through “positive discrimination”, is infallible. We can at once blame an entire gender for the current problems suffered by the lower classes, without having any evidence linking said entire gender to the cause of those problems. We just assume, based on the mistaken belief that, were everything left alone, the whole world would be equal, therefore every difference is more evidence for discrimination. An example of how far South those assumptions can go is when angry, poor, White youth attackl poor Jewish property owners under the assumption that, the banking system having been created and maintained by Jews, all Jews must be in on it and all of them must be to blame. Another example is how juries on average give women lenient sentences for the same crime that a man generally gets severely punished for, or when Communists and Anarchists damage franchise property at great expense to the community and little expense to the company.

But what do all these examples have in common? Well, not only are they misguided people using a scapegoat to blame for their problems, but the victims or the people most hurt are usually people of their own Financial class. Black and White youth on welfare are more likely to be angry or aggressive towards each other than towards wealthier or more powerful members of their own or the other’s race. Working class Nazis are more likely to assault working class Jews than people in the actual banking systems or the media. Middle class radical feminists are more likely to attack or unjustly treat middle class men than politicians or military higher-ups. In short, not only do we scapegoat a whole group of people, but the red herrings we victimize are more likely to be people exactly like us. People who live near us, who went to our same university, who work with us, who go out for drinks with us, who’ve faced the same struggles as us, who’ve seen the same horrors as us, who have the same fears as us. When a modern ideology chooses a scapegoat, regardless of how few people believe in it, it can still impact those who are close to us and make them vulnerable. It is highly unlikely to impact those who can and do actually hurt us. However, oblivious to this, the followers of modern ideologies seek a redistribution of power within their class confines. The men want the slight advantages women have: assumed parental custody, right to determine reproduction, freedom to choose military service, assumed moral integrity. The women want the slight advantages men have: assumed loyalty in social and work settings, freedom of expression, assumption of sanity, respect for biological urges. And both sides largely blame the other for their situation. After all, if a young woman is viewed as an impermanent employee and therefore overlooked for promotion, and a man is free to wear whatever he wants on a night out and besides dress-codes is treated the same as any other man, then surely the men are privileged and part of the system preventing women’s promotion? Of if a man is forced to pay child support for a child he is no longer legally allowed to see, and a woman is free to pass over the draft, then surely the women are privileged and part of the system preventing men’s reproductive choice? In reality, however, whilst these legal differences need to be addressed, the system that creates them is neither Patriarchal or Matriarchal. It is Plutocratic. Why is a woman who is young and fertile passed over for promotion? Assuming all things are equal, she could someday get pregnant, take maternity leave or even have a  few years out of work, leaving the company with a senior role to fill and a lot of money wasted on training and certificates. Why is a man who cannot see his children given the responsibility of paying to support them? Assuming he desires to surrender his children, that would leave a single mother who cannot afford to get a full-time job due to childcare costs, bonding time and other problems, who will need State support at some time or another to guarantee that child does not suffer. Taking the money away from a citizen is better than giving full responsibility to the State. The Plutocracy demands a constant flow of money from the hands of the poor into the pockets of the rich, with a slight trickle back down to keep the poor working and spending.

However, most modern ideologies fail to grasp this. Why? Because the scapegoats are both present and intangible. “Indians” are both people you know and a vague, elusive group. The Upper Classes, however, are invisible and intangible. Besides the figureheads (current celebrities, top politicians) and the few who appear in the news (either in a fall from grace or as exemplary citizens), we know of very few of them. In fact, besides one or two political figures and a handful of celebrities, how many of the aristocratic, ruling and enforcing classes can you name? How often do you see them outside of the news? They aren’t a real presence in your life. Therefore, we assume they’re as fictional and unimportant as Johnny Bravo or Ramona Flowers. Or we assume that their power somehow fits into our world view. Did you know, the Rothschilds are Jews, therefore Jews must be the problem. Philip Hammond is a man, therefore men must be the problem. Constance Briscoe is a woman, therefore women must be the problem. And hey, Obama’s Black or mixed-race, a Man and heterosexual, so take your pick.

However, if we completely disregard our red herrings and look at the actual suffering of real people, as broken down by class, we see the more disturbing pattern. Are Black girls’ rapes more often unreported or dismissed? Or is it the rape of Poor children in poor, underprotected neighbourhoods? Are White men more likely to shoot Black men? Or do the Enforcing classes create laws and employ the Bourgeois and Working classes to suppress, terrorize and cull the Poor, Welfare and Criminal classes? Are East Asians being elevated to “model minority” status by the “secret society to keep money White”? Or are East Asians bringing more money with them whenever they migrate and passing down more money to each generation, and writers trying to adjust this into their narrative? Is the glass ceiling holding ambitious women back? Or is the Aristocratic class open only to those who are willing to conform and maintain the status quo?

Likewise, there is a correlation (though not as strong), between being in the Dependent class and being hurt in a manner that is condoned, enforced and promoted by the Governing and Enforcing classes. In other words, if you are Upper Class, but your income and safety still depends on a few individuals rather than on your entire class, those whom you depend upon and those on good terms with them will cause you harm and attempt to evict you from the Upper Classes. Almost everyone outside the Upper Classes is dependent on them. Within the social classes generally the Governing and Enforcing classes hold most of the power, whereas only a few Aristocrats and Bourgeois do.

However, this leads to a final conclusion. If men from the Bourgeois class are given slight advantages over women from the Bourgeois class, if the women also receive slight advantages and if these advantages do not promote social mobility or eliminate their disadvantages, then what both groups experience is, where enforced, condoned or promoted, Benevolent Sexism. A man who gets a promotion because he’s unlikely to get pregnant, yet is still at the beck and call of the company, wholly dependent on the Upper Classes and checked by a number of disadvantages designed to keep him dependent is not benefiting from a universal Patriarchal structure. He is being given a reward for accepting his burden and continuing to pass money up to the Upper Classes. Likewise, when a wealthy, Free woman is caught with a vast amount of drugs and her alleged male dealer is sent to prison whereas she is on house arrest for a week, she is not being subjugated by Benevolent Sexism, rather, she is receiving Unearned Class Privilege.

But, whilst the money trail needs to be followed to see where the power is, that doesn’t mean obtaining power lies in the acquisition of money. As I said earlier, you can be Upper Class and stripped of your Aristocracy, or rich Bourgeois and living a life of dependence. Class mobility isn’t so simple as obtaining wealth. Oftentimes we focus on employment and income as the only way of redistributing wealth, assuming that if we redistribute it enough, eventually the power will be  pried away from the current upper classes and evenly spread out. As if that would be allowed to happen. As I’ve explained, the main purpose of the current Plutocracy is to keep the wealthy wealthy. When money is power, the powerful make more money. Sure, you may be able to climb. But living on an income of 300k is more expensive than on one of 250k. And there will always be a limiter, something to stop you from passing through to the top unless you plan on maintaining the status quo.

Therefore, modern ideologies’ focus is wrong. Their focus on money creates a sense of despair combined with a belief that you can make it and defeat the status quo if you only try. Their focus on the narratives of gender, race, sexuality, etc creates infighting within each class, inhibiting social mobility and allowing everybody to continue earning and spending for the Upper Classes. In fact, presenting yourself as a victim is considered more reward-worthy than trying to improve your lot. Victims give the media an example to use, to prove the scapegoat real. Victims create conflict and tension and lead to long debates about whether women are oppressing men or men are oppressing women. So we follow the usual narrative of blaming a broad category of people and an invisibly system, all whilst holding our Rulers and Enforcers up as either the ringleaders of this invisible group or as exemplary human beings who have transcended our sinful nature and escaped discrimination.

But perhaps, if our apples are going missing and our neighbour’s apples are going missing: someone else is stealing the apples.

Advertisements

Why do we value victimhood?

First of all, let’s get straight on the definitions.

To value: to consider something important. The value: the importance or worth ascribed to something.

The reward: something given to someone in exchange for good behaviour or good work.

A victim: someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else or because of chance.

Victimhood: the state of being a victim.

victim1

.

Within this context, what are the values of a culture?

The easiest way to explain the values of a culture would be to say that, far from being things the people like, a culture’s values are the likes and dislikes typical for that culture. Values also require written and unwritten laws that encourage the members of that culture to pursue the things it likes and avoid the things it doesn’t like. Therefore, the protection of female virginity was one of the values of late medieval culture, not because virginity was liked, but because its absence was disliked. Similarly, a strong nationalistic and meritocratic drive was part of the values of 1960s America, as a counter to the perceived Soviet culture of the same time. The values of a culture could be ideas, states of being or activities that are good, bad or somewhere in between. Provided there is some sort of order designed for keeping people on the right path, you could say the culture is assigning a value to these ideas, states or activities. As such, they represent its values.

In the past, in most societies, the values coincided with what was healthy for the population at the time. When cheating and illegitimacy caused loss of wealth, distress and disharmony, the culture would respond by encouraging the values of legitimacy, marriage, monogamy and faithfulness. When diet or environment caused infertility and monogamy led to an ever-lowering birthrate, the culture would respond by creating a structure within which cheating was valued. When failing to save resources caused total poverty or starvation, the culture would respond by valuing thriftiness. When saving too many resources resulted in wealth inequality based poverty or starvation, the culture would respond by valuing charity. As such, an equilibrium is created within which a society can function. Shared values create integrity, regardless of what these values may be.

Sometimes the value had an immediate, direct benefit for the people. As such, it’s easy to understand why they would be adhered to. Marry one man, carry his children and his children only and you will guarantee yourself and your children resources for life. Save your resources now, and you will eat in Winter. But other times the value goes against hardwired behaviours, or the reward isn’t obvious enough. How does a man realize that if he can’t put a child in his wife, then his options are to have no children or let another man put one in her? Sure, there may be innumerable benefits to having children (legitimate or not) in his society, but the benefit isn’t immediate, even if it is direct, and it likely goes against his instincts. Likewise, there is no immediate, direct benefit in giving some of your crop to your neighbours rather than storing it for yourself. But, down the line, you may need them to till your field or even feed you for a year and if they’re dead they can’t do that. But the immediate, direct reward of hoarding surely calls louder?

This is where societies add extra incentives as well as punishments. The society may have a swinger policy, whereby all women are available to all men for a few weeks of the year, ensuring all the women get a chance at getting pregnant and all the men get a chance at having a new woman, as well as all but guaranteeing that every household will provide future workers and heirs. Or it may punish men who fail to produce children by taking their wives away, ensuring the woman’s womb is used, either by her husband (if he needed to get his act together) or another man (if he was infertile). Or the society may have a policy of sharing out all the food, or may place spiritual value on charity, to encourage those with accumulated resources to distribute them. Or it may punish greed with seizing your resources or even a physical beating for hoarding when your neighbour starved. The introduction of a punishment is the formal law we are all familiar with. Produce no children? We take your wife. Hoard your food? We beat you up. At first glance they seem like arbitrary, unfair rules. When we look to their origin, we see they come from a value upheld by the society: forming a family, acting charitably. And these values are based on the needs of the society: population maintenance through raised birthrate or lowered death rate.

The act of adding an incentive is less analyzed, but equally as important. It creates an informal rule. Nobody is forced to have sex with anyone but their spouse and no household is directly punished for failing to produce workers and heirs. But the culture encourages swinging to an extent where it’s assumed it will happen. And, if 99/100 men and 80/100 women swing, then the infertility that some men suffer is of no consequence. Unlike with the formal law, every fertile woman isn’t guaranteed to produce children, but she probably will. Likewise, when a culture places a spiritual value on charity, they aren’t directly punishing greed. However, by creating a society that values charity this culture is making it hard to be non-charitable. If you aren’t charitable, then you won’t receive charity when you need it (a likely thing in that sort of an environment) and your neighbours may become distant to you out of resentment or frustration. Therefore, most people will be charitable and the few who aren’t won’t impact the society too severely.

This shows how social attention can serve the function of a pressure, sometimes one that is stronger than the threat of punishment. A culture that encourages its people to lavish attention on those who conform to the values will always lead to inequality of attention. Even if they are not instructed to withdraw attention from non-conformists, most people within the society will. Even if they don’t, the conformists still get more attention. Once the cultural norm and values have been established, a society will celebrate members that most embody those values. In a society where chastity is valued, particularly chaste people would be held up as examples. In a society where swinging is valued, those who get through the most partners are pedestalized. In a society where thriftiness is valued, those with the most resources are admired. In a society where charity is valued, those who give away the most are looked up to. Examples of this can be seen in the value of virgins in European religious rites or the value placed on obesity (a symbol of wealth) in poor nations.

.

However, modern, Western humans are hardly worthy of admiration. Not only are we weaker, more gullible, less intelligent, less agile, less educated, fatter, less skilled, less useful and generally worse all-round than ever before or anywhere else, but we don’t actually care. How many unfit people do you think are engaging in daily cardio to knock back their body-fat, lifting weights to strengthen their muscles and staying generally active all day? How many uneducated people do you think are reading every day, learning about new skills, fleshing-out areas of interest? How many less skilled people do you think are investing their time into becoming self-sufficient, learning plumbing, developing artistic skills, making a living on the side, growing their own? The modern, Western human isn’t the product of chance. Most unfit people got that way through poor diet and little exercise. And they will stay unfit through poor diet and little exercise. Most uneducated people got that way through a lack of curiosity and a willingness to have their opinions spoon-fed. And they will stay uneducated through a lack of curiosity and a willingness to have their opinions spoon-fed. Most unskilled people got that way through enjoying and abusing the eases of modern life at any expense. And they will stay unskilled through enjoying and abusing the eases of modern life at any expense. Very few ever change.

victim3

So why do we not pursue what is best for us? Sure enough, laziness, following the herd, abusing tasty food and convenience and refusing to do uncomfortable things comes naturally to humans. It comes naturally to every animal. Biology’s course of action can be summed up as “What gets you the greatest reward for the least effort?” Yet surely as thinking humans they can see that dieting, working out, reading, researching and developing new skills would benefit them in the long run? Surely, like those in swinger societies or in charitable societies, they possess the ability to overcome their own base drives so as to engage in behaviours that benefit them in the long run? So what’s the missing variable? What do these societies have that we don’t? Well, as you’ve probably guessed: they have values.

Modern, Western society is in many ways like any other. We have laws that are enforced by standardized punishment. These are the fairly-in-stone rules that no member of that society should break. They are generally agreed upon, even if the details are debated. Few if any break these rules, because the fear of punishment is the strongest driver behind humans’ self-control within a society.

We also have things we socially reward. However, unlike in smaller, closer societies, these things aren’t values. They operate like values, though, and encourage certain behaviours. So, what do we reward? Now we find out why the unfit stay unfit, the uneducated stay uneducated and the unskilled stay unskilled. To use an American metaphor, we live in a bucket of crabs. In the modern, Western World where all can afford to be lazy, uneducated and unskilled, pretty much all are. We are all crabs. We are all the same. Nobody is perfect. Some may be fatter, but the thin people eat rubbish and are unfit as well. Some may have a degree, but are probably ignorant in most other areas. Some may be talented artists, but they have sacrificed other aspects of their lives. It’s also why we love the “nerds vs jocks” or “popular vs smart” or “artistic vs mathematical” dichotomies. We like the idea that people only excel in a few areas, that everyone’s good at something and that their contribution is always equal to that of anyone else. So, when some poor, deluded crab tries to climb out of the bucket, we pull them back. Some of you have probably already experienced this. You start losing weight so your co-workers start bringing doughnuts to work. You start learning a new language and your boss gives you extra work. You start working out so your wife starts planning things for you that are “accidentally” on workout days. You try and quit TV and all your friends are on your back about it. It’s easy to think it’s accidental. Until you try to do these things again and the conflict becomes borderline abusive. Or you begin again, without telling them, and somehow the doughnuts, extra work, plans and nagging stops. Then it’s easy to think it “comes from the right place”. But there is only one way that wanting to keep you in the crab bucket comes from the right place: success is lonely. Get fit? Most of your old friends won’t go jogging or lifting with you. Learn a new language? Most of your old friends won’t speak it with you. Get into woodwork? Most of your old friends will think it’s boring. Sure, you can make new friends, but the old ones are reluctant to part with you. They don’t know if you will make new friends. Maybe then it comes from the right place. But that place is also “laziness”. They could get fit, learn a language or practice woodwork. They may not do what you’re doing, but they could still get fit another way, learn something else or develop another skill. Then you could still interact, share your common ground and recall and discuss things. But if they’re lazy, then you don’t share any of your new traits with them. It’s not all about the activities, but if you’re bettering yourself and they aren’t, your entire behavioural pattern and mindset are different too. Soon you’ll have little in common.

Besides, generally it isn’t coming from “the right place” — if you can call laziness so. Generally it comes from frustration, due to the fact you’re doing something they know nothing about. Or from jealousy, because you’re improving yourself and they’re still the same. Or from confusion, because “you’re just not a thin person” or “quitting TV isn’t like you” and you’re already good enough, so if you improve any more you’ll disrupt the natural order. They reach out their claws and pull you back into the bucket. And most people are like that, at least to a degree. So, we punish excellence by socially conditioning those who would pursue it and creating an environment where excellence is more harmful than good. We don’t imprison anyone for lifting weights. We don’t fine anyone for reading. There is no law against learning mechanics. But we socially reward laziness, mediocrity and failure. These are our values because they are what we value. And it goes to a point where hard-work, excellence and success are viewed as either “having a special talent”, “being gifted” or “neglecting your social life”. Yes, they will try and drag you down, then socially exclude you, then complain you aren’t spending time with them. People suck.

people11

All of this can lead to an internalized fear of improving yourself, or a belief there’s nothing to improve, or a belief that you’re incapable of improvement. As noted by Maverick Traveler, when he was living a good life, doing what he enjoyed, he somehow felt he was doing the wrong thing, because everyone else was working in offices, with little time to themselves, letting themselves go. The social pressures are such that a human could be enjoying their lives, meeting all their base needs, rarely going against their impulses and feel guilty because they’re not “like everyone else.” I, myself, whilst I manage to avoid the social-pressure side of it, still feel the seeds of doubt whenever I do anything outside the norm. Marrying this young? Not many people do it, maybe there’s a reason for that? Keeping animals and gardening? Not many people do it, maybe it could be bad? Working from home? Not many people do it, maybe it’s bad for you. Of course, the social side of what “should” I do is avoided. But even then, not being part of the larger group can lead us to question our actions. Peer pressure is both active and passive and if one side doesn’t get you, the other will. Our culture wants us all to be lazy and useless and dash it, our minds will persuade us to conform to society.

.
All this leads to a society where it has become easy to be a “victim”. Most people, in reality, are nothing but victims of their own socially sanctioned laziness. But, as mentioned above, victims can’t be a victim of themselves. It must be external. Most people seem happy to accept that their life is good and they are where they are because of their own failure. However society suffers two ills:

1: We can’t think that way of others. It’s fine to say “I’m fat because I eat too much and am too lazy to fight it.” It’s not fine to say “She’s fat because she eats too much and is too lazy to fight it.” It’s not just that there’s the minute possibility that the other person’s state isn’t down to their own failure. It’s that we must automatically assume that this is the case. There isn’t a minute possibility she’s fat due to a disorder, medication or someone else’s influence. We must assume that’s the case. We are a product of our own design. But everyone else is a victim.

2: We believe there is something noble about victimhood. That a victim is always, deep down, a good person. That without whatever (imagined or assumed) pressure led to their situation, they wouldn’t be in this situation. If it weren’t for her (assumed) disorder, she’d be fitter. She wouldn’t be like us because she’s a victim. Victims are always martyrs, victims are always saints. Whenever we find a real victim the press gushes over them, even if they managed nothing. They may be a true martyr who stood tall, fought back and suffered for it. They may be someone who got hit by a car, almost died and is now angry. Both of them are worthy of admiration. We don’t value the fighter, we value the sufferer.

victim4

people10

This has led to a reasonably large portion of the population embracing victimhood. All you need to do is say “this person is a victim” and that person will embrace it. You could even say “anyone who eats a vegan diet is a victim” and a number of vegans will embrace it. Say “all women are victims” and some women will embrace it. Victimhood has been valued so highly by our society that some people see nothing wrong in standing up and declaring themselves to be victims openly or subtly. They reap the social rewards, exaggerate their own weakness and failures to get more social reward, fight with other self-professed victims over who’s more deserving of the social rewards and generally neglect actually doing anything with or for themselves in lieu of being victims. Some even put hard work into being victims. Yes, time and energy they could have spent on bettering themselves is invested into becoming more of a victim.

And this problem is spreading. It may even become epidemic. People everywhere wishing to be weak and useless, to justify their own weakness by claiming victimhood and idly sit in a bed of their own making whilst crying about the injustice of it and demanding handouts. Because society values that.

.

So how could we start fixing this? I’m sure many of you have already thought of making things illegal. Punish those who fail, those who depend, those who are lazy. Sure, there will be some civilian casualties: people who genuinely had a problem, who genuinely were victims, who will be caught in the crossfire. But they will be a minority and society as a whole will function better.

But there’s a problem with that.

When you take values and make them into law you won’t receive gratitude. This isn’t just because people are lazy and don’t want to change. Think of every nation that wrote or has written values such as faith, sexual behaviour or charity into law. It’s no surprise that they’re all viewed as tyrannical by most. Even those who give them some more room agree that certain of these laws were unnecessary and open to abuse. A value is an internal thing, a social thing and a cultural thing. Laws that are designed to protect the individual and the weak will always be viewed favourably. We may change our minds about who we consider weak, what we need protection from and what constitutes appropriate punishment but, in principle, if we say “someone who kills others must be punished”, the rest of society will agree. However values are different. If we say “someone who doesn’t follow the majority religion must be punished” even the followers will be hesitant to agree. We would start looking at ways of letting others practise other religions without bothering us, or for reasonably mild punishments. If we say “someone who abuses their body must be punished” we get even more hesitant, or even hostile towards the statement. It is their body to abuse. Of course, most members of a modern, Western society will agree that a variety of faiths and increasing numbers of obese people is doing us some harm. But everyone will have a different explanation as to why it’s wrong and a different solution. Few will suggest law, because culture, social interactions and everyday behaviours are not a legal matter.

When a law is introduced to control what people believe, what they say, how they dress, what they eat, etc, members of the society will not like it. And, regardless of whether they choose to rebel or to submit, they will resent it. They will seize any opportunity to shake off these laws. Because laws are immutable, inflexible and specific and culture is a permanently changing, highly adaptable, highly inclusive aspect of society. And that divide is what humans prefer. Law cannot replace values. Law cannot replace culture. It may solve your problems, at least for a while, but down the line it becomes a tyranny and disintegrates.

tyrant

.

So how else can we establish values? Well, as mentioned above, values tend to stem from needs. In modern society, we don’t need to be fit, strong, educated, skilled or driven. But humans weren’t designed with inactivity, weakness and lack of mental stimulation in mind. Think of laziness as salt. We need salt. As salt in nature is rare, we are designed to seek it out and eat as much as we can when we find a good source. When salt is limitless we abuse it because our bodies developed in a world where salt was scarce. Similarly, laziness was good. Humans didn’t develop in an environment where relaxation was always possible. We needed to run, jump, climb, learn, debate, strategise, make, mend, transform. So a few hours of sitting back, enjoying the sun and watching the animals, stretching out, napping or singing and talking would have been much appreciated. Our bodies are meant to crave this sort of a break from everything. Yet, as with salt, there’s a natural limit. Eating a spoonful of salt or tasting a salt-lick produces a disgust response in most people. We are adequately salted and, to an degree, know when we have too much. In the case of laziness, we start getting restless, feeling dissatisfied, developing depression… We’re meant to enjoy rest, but we’re not meant to be lazy.

On top of that, we find many inherent, biological rewards in being awesome. First of all there is pride, of course. When you get good at something, or manage to accomplish something, you feel proud. The more work went into it, the more right you have to feel that way. The greater and more unique the accomplishment, the more right you have to feel that way. On top of this, being better generally means you are… better. Funny that, eh? When you’re stronger or faster or more educated you find doors opening up, you find everything becomes easier. Your body benefits so much from being fit that you’re a shadow of your former unfit self. You can jog to work. You can do your own lifting. Your depression or anxiety are gone. You have more energy at the end of the day. And this holds true for every way you can better yourself. The more you improve, the more your quality of life improves.

Just ask this guy.

Just ask this guy.

And, secondarily, humans are relatively disgusted by inferiority and failure. There’s a reason we don’t want to go near seeping infected wounds or non-directionally aggressive people: they are dangerous to us. This explains why we don’t want to interact with people who have poor complexions or less control over their emotions. We can’t be certain, but our amygdala is hedging its bets and assuming these people are ill or unpredictable. As such, they could be dangerous. But what about those who present no direct threat, like the overweight, the underweight, the intellectually lazy or the self-pitying? That is a cultural conflict. First of all, if you’re strong, fit, attractive, knowledge-thirsty, proud and aspirational, you’re unlikely to find yourself in an environment where you have to interact with these people. This is because you have little in common with them. As you have little in common with them, you will not frequent the same locations. And when you try and talk to them it’s going to sound like they come from a separate culture. They talk about the pain of walking up the stairs, lethargy, how annoying it is to have to read for that lecture, how sorry they feel for themselves and how sad they are at having to miss a TV show for work. They talk to you like you understand when, in reality, it’s like they’re describing a Dream-Time experience, or complaining about how painful a horse bite is. It is not a shared experience. So we may not feel visceral disgust, but we’re already confused and distant. What are these exotic foreigners talking about? After a while we distance ourselves from them physically and avoid interactions, due to either awkwardness, or crab-bucketing and jealousy.

victim5

On a conscious level, those of us who have worked hard at self-improvement understand why this is. They are not like us. They do not share our culture. They could share our culture and, in doing so, they would rid themselves of many of the things they complain about. But they choose not to. They choose victimhood. Which is probably the most disgusting thing about them. It’s easy to be repelled by someone who is not only culturally distinct from you, but who embodies the exact opposite of your values. They value weakness, mediocrity and laziness. You value strength, excellence and perseverance. It’s perfectly natural to feel repelled by that sort of a difference.

.

But how can these people live with themselves like that? How can it be that we reached a point where weakness and victimhood are so prized?

There is a saying that misery loves company. I would add that so does almost every human state. Some may be more asocial, some may keep the odd thing from others, but generally, when we find a culture we identify with and can integrate into, we share our experiences. It’s actually a heavy driver behind the success of the internet. Find others like yourself, like-minded, with similar interests. Nowadays there’s an active forum and website for everything you could imagine. Humans seek others like themselves. So, misery seeks company, but so do anger, righteousness, motivation and laziness.

And what about before the internet? Well, anyone who remembers growing up pre-net or who grew up in a backwater little village knows full well what most people do: integrate. If there aren’t others like yourself, you make yourself like the others. The majority tends to dictate how everyone will behave. Influence of majority is the glue that holds society together. Otherwise we’d all go our own separate ways and promptly die.

So not only are the voluntarily weak members of our society being enabled by the environment and spurred by their strong instinctive drives, but they are also being encouraged by the fact they’re the majority and justified by a culture that worships victimhood. If you hurt your wrist deadlifting, unless you’re part of a forum or a gym, there’s nobody there to help you out with form and rehab. And accountability lies behind every corner; nobody will tell you it wasn’t your fault unless it genuinely wasn’t. Yet if you’re idle and consequently unfit, depressed, in pain and uneducated, most will support you with love and affection, many will justify your situation, many will portray you as a victim of chance or tyranny. The few who speak against these lies will be labelled haters, lunatics, jealous, prejudiced or epicaricatic. The “victim” finds comfort in victimhood and is encouraged to pursue it. To boot, when a “victim” casts off the label and tries to better themselves they are often attacked for turning against their friends, family and others like themselves, as described above. This creates a loop whereby it is incredibly socially rewarding to be idle and to reap the rewards of idleness. It’s easy and rewarding to excuse this idleness by becoming a victim. And the more times you go round this loop, the more committed you are to this identity, to this culture, to these values.

Furthermore, to try and make these “victims” feel even better about themselves, this culture attempts to rebrand universally appreciated values such as pride or respect. Pride comes to mean “I do what I want and I like it”, “I like myself however I am and will not change”. Pride comes to mean arrogance, ignorance and embracing your victimhood. Someone would rather be a proud “fativist” or “slut” than accept they were wrong about their weight or their teenage choices. Respect comes to lose all meaning, being granted freely to everyone rather than earned. Thus, respect ceases to matter. If everyone should have it automatically, then why should we value it? These attempts at rebranding preexisting values are a way of subverting the remaining traces of a prior culture, a culture in which victimhood was not valued. By taking something generally valued and changing its meaning to include things it used to specifically exclude, the new culture attempts to make itself sound and look better. Again, it’s an attempt at justifying idleness.

.

In short, modern society prizes victimhood because it needs to excuse its idleness, mediocrity and weakness. As the majority are idle, mediocre and weak, this creates a social reward for being so as well. Whilst many will refuse to label themselves victims, they seem to do so out of a sort of humility and are ready to label anyone and everyone else a victim, with all ailments being beyond their control. When someone tries to break free of a negative habit, like crabs in a bucket the majority will reach up and pull them back.

Modern society values victimhood. Everyone will reward you for being a victim, for portraying yourself as a victim, for accepting your “fate”. You can never make progress until you accept that excellence is its own reward.

people4

The finite resources of the left.

One of the biggest issues that leftists face is their inability to comprehend resource generation.

The “global overpopulation leftists” fail to understand that all of humanity could almost comfortably live in Texas.

The “national overpopulation leftists” fail to understand that an abundant young generation is a creator of jobs, not a drain on tax money.

The “no hunting leftists” cannot comprehend that some species breed assuming predation will occur.

The “Trump is a parasite leftists” cannot comprehend that even a tax-dodger can be valuable if they create jobs and resources.

The “anti permaculture vegan leftists” do not see that animals and plants promote the growth of each other.

The “taxation is theft leftists” do not see how wealth can be built and grown rather than just accumulated.

The “wage gap leftists” and “ninety nine percenter leftists” do not see how money is a representative measure we have created, not a fixed resource that can be “hogged” indefinitely.

They simply can’t wrap their minds around the idea that there is more production capacity in the Earth that what we are already using. They cannot comprehend the vastness of available resources, that in principle until the Sun goes supernova, we have unlimited ability to grow.

We are not running out of space.

We are not running out of food.

We are not running out of money.

We are not running out of resources.

Our capacity for growth is limited only by our own restrictions, by the Sun’s availability and by our time on this planet.

Resources and services are produced not mined.

But how can we expect a parasite to comprehend resource generation?

7 Things I Learned About Syrian Refugees From Talking To Them.

Leftists like to use humanitarian issues to make themselves seem more conscientious and to say pleasantries that will get them likes and favourites online. Now, this isn’t solely the territory of the left. Before I continue, I would like to say that some right wing areas are affected by this, such as the pro-life supporters who will use premature babies or images of abortions to derive an emotional response from their social media friends, or the armchair politicians who will use unrelated incidents and pretty pictures to promote Trump, for example. A photo of a premature baby saying “I could have been aborted” or a picture of Trump with his arm around a model have as little to do with the abortion or POTUS debates as a picture of a dead black person has to do with the police discrimination debate. Nor do they offer tangible support for the causes the same way activism via ralleys, protests, public debates, writing or fund raising do. None of these practices further a cause, contribute to debate or challenge perspectives. They’re just designed to get a pat of approval from their seniors and peers. Thus, the lowest of every ideology and group can and do share around a news story to push their ideology without having to present a real argument or get off their butts and do something.

That said, this article will focus on an argument almost completely overtaken by the left: Syrian refugees. People escaping war zones (and sometimes Turkey] to seek a better life in the West (and sometimes to harass western women, their own women and their own children]. Of course the leftists are all forgetting about it now and focusing on PETA’s exploration of pet store practices and Donald Trump’s unprecedented support. But the fact is that there are still refugees seeking asylum from what is essentially the worst situation a nation can find itself in, and these people are still making their efforts to integrate and live among us. The left has dominated the argument, telling us everything from what we should think to what we should say or do, reminding us that these refugees are basically pre-western Muslims and that they will soon become liberal, democratic and socialist.

But, from actually talking to a few, a different picture is painted. Here are seven things I have learned about Syrian refugees from actual refugees’ observations about the West.

1: They hate leftists.

“Women here don’t cook at all. I have met one woman who cooks, one old woman. Other women they order take out or buy sandwiches. In my country, every woman cooks. All girls cook.”

Sorry leftists, but all your love, “refugees welcome” and letting them live in your homes is for nothing at all. Deep down, they despise you.

A Syrian refugee I spoke to and the other refugees he associates with despise leftism. They believe men should be men and women should be women. They admire women like me who work from home, are married young, want to have children and look after their homes. They are disgusted by women who cannot cook or clean, who do not marry until after 30 and who do not prioritize children.

Likewise, they admire men who are big and strong, who go to the gym, who control their sexual urges, who love and respect femininity, who look forward to marriage. They are disgusted by small, bearded hipsters who let masculine women walk all over them and are addicted to lattes.

They do not like how our governments are ran, how our universities act, how young women get drunk at night alone, how we dress slack, how we walk on eggshells and get “triggered” by nothing, how we disregard religion and God. They hate the left as a whole.

2: We are too stressed.

“When I came here I had never heard of depression, it does not exist in Syria. I had not met one person who had it. Here everyone is depressed or stressed or bipolar. Many other refugees were well until they got to England, then they were diagnosed with depression.”

Life in Syria was hard even before the revolutions. It was not the best country to live in, with military presence, governmental control and religious enforcement, not to mention the mess being caused by the West’s oil missions. But even through that, they did not experience mental illness. That’s not to say nobody had it. And of course some people with underlying symptoms would not have been diagnosed. But, as a whole, the people of Syria grit their teeth and carried on with life through bombs and terror threats and military invasions.

Many of them were also fine as long as they were living somewhere like Turkey or Hungary or France. Separation from their families was hard, but they felt fine. Crossing the British border is a turning point for many. The terrible weather, vitamin D deficiency, the impersonal and cold interactions and the highly pressurised work environment take their toll and many of them are still on antidepressants and supplement cocktails to try and help them. Our lifestyle is just terrible for mental health.

3: They respect CANDOs.

“I have respect for hippies, the old hippies. They acted on their principles. They turned against the things they hated and lived freely. I have a lot of respect for that.”

So who do they respect, if not the weak leftists who let them in to begin with? Well, they like the people I have termed CANDOs, that is “can do”, “can and do”. The people who get out there and actively chase what they want, get what they want, whatever it is. They have respect for old hippies who lived off-grid, for 20-something women who balance family and work healthily, for men who create great inventions, for devoted grandmothers, for inspired teachers, intensive writers and even the average Joes who go out and are the best they can be at their regular, run-of-the-mill jobs.

The YOLO crowd have nothing on a lumberjack who works up to owning his own company. A Strong Independent Woman has nothing on a young mother of three. The hipster blogger has nothing on the self-publishing, self-reliant writer. The people waving “refugees welcome” signs have nothing on hippies in shanty town retreats. If you get off your butt and do something with your life, whatever your angle or ideology, they respect you.

4: We are wasteful and ignorant.

No specific quotes here, but over the course of our conversations I have discovered that most Syrian refugees are confused by our wastefulness.

We waste time. One man works long days every day, only having time for lessons after seven or eight at night. He gives his job his all. And he is confused as to why we don’t in the West.

We waste food. We will buy more food than we need and throw it away. They were horrified to find out how much of our crops goes to waste before even making it to the supermarkets. We just throw away things that most of the rest of the world would kill for.

We waste land. One was also confused that not many people grow food in the UK. He initially seemed to be assuming we could not grow most plants and was surprised to find out the varieties of brassicas and squash we can grow. The idea that we would focus on wheat, import vegetables and not grow our own vegetables in our gardens made no sense.

We waste money. Seeing how much British people earn, they were not particularly impressed by the way we throw it all down the drain on devices, clothes and ready meals.

5: We do more than we need to.

“Your country, it has done me, all of us, a great favour. In Jordan refugees live in concentration camps. They are not allowed to walk around, they must wait for deportation. In Saudi Arabia they are not allowed in. You are doing far more than you need to.”

Even though they do not like the leftists or anything they represent, they are incredibly grateful to our government for what has been done for them. They know and have seen that even their own bretheren feel no responsibility to help them. This means that they are genuinely, deeply grateful to be allowed to work for IT companies and even waste disposal companies in a wealthy nation, as opposed to sweeping streets or being kept in prison cells in a developing neighbour nation.

The things that the leftists insist are the bare minimum, the things they say these refugees could not live without, the things they say are human rights in all but name… they didn’t even know they were an option. The refugees are just happy to be not living in a concentration camp and would actually understand if we had to cut funding to the causes that help them. We are doing far more than we need to do.

6: They despise Sharia adherents and criminals.

“We would not tolerate that. In my country, their hands would be cut off.”

Finally something the leftists are right about! No, they are not all supporters of the rape of slutty, drunk white women. They might think the women are childishly irresponsible and the parents deserve to be whipped, but they also think the rapists need to be punished.

If they were able to, they would not stand for self-assigned 20-something “Sharia officials” attacking girls on the streets of Birmingham, child sex rings or other criminal activities. They would not stand for the sort of rubbish that leftists are constantly ignoring or excusing. Sure, they would not stand for sluttish behaviour, gambling, drinking or single motherhood either. But most of them in no way want to return to Sharia, and definitely will not pardon crimes just because they were carried out by their religious and ethnic bretheren.

7: They want Syria.

Again, no specific quotes, but gathered from various conversations. A lot of leftists seem to think that a Syrian refugee is a leftist, socialist-voting, democracy-supporting, atheist or secular progressive in the making. Nothing could be further from the truth. They do not like the way our society is.

They want women to marry young and have many healthy children.

They want men to work hard and be able to support a family on a single salary.

They want education to focus on the basics and move everyone towards specific jobs.

They want religion to be more accepted and closely followed, preferably Islam.

They want women to care for their homes.

They want men to be practical and productive.

In short, they reminisce about Syria. They did not like the regime, or the war, or the soldiers, or the fuel fights, or the poverty. But the version of the West they want to live in is closer to 1930 than 2016.

In conclusion, Syrian refugees are, shockingly, nothing like the leftists like to pretend. Sure, they aren’t the violent masses of rapists and murderers that some overly emotional right-wingers wanted. But neither are they lovers of leftism, freedom, democracy or individualism. They are not future candidates for the left at all. But, as long as depression and disappointment don’t chase them away from our countries or towards Sharia law, they just might be the start of the West’s turn back towards traditionalism. Well done leftists, well done.

The Leftist Paradox.

Lefists are a constant ball of paradoxes.

They are Strong and Independent, yet they demand constant assistance in becoming independent. Apparently they need to be constantly supported in order to be independent, only as long as it’s faceless taxpayers and not their neighbours.

They are a cult of individuals, collective individualists each of which worships themselves only, believes they are unique, yet demands to be surrounded by other cultists and make people adhere to their cult.

They eagerly proclaim they wish to help people, but reject any movement which would cause real change and deny the roots of social issues in favour of institutional bogeymen.

They wish to be a part of things only in as far as being a part of them, never considering the work or the culture behind them.

It’s all about appearances. It’s all about face. They don’t want to be independent: they just don’t want to ask their mother for a handout in fron of their friends, or live on their husband’s income. They don’t want to be individuals: they just want to be acknowledged as individuals and live in a society that enforces no rules on them. They do not want a society at all: they want a support group for their ego. They do not want to be a part of gaming, or sci-fi, or the banking system: they just want to stop everyone else from having a functional culture and society. Because the thing they fear the most is people with a working culture and a working society, who will impose rules on them and mock them for their weakness.

Leftists are only a paradox as long as you believe they stand for anything but their own ego.

10 Things I Learned Writing For Leftist Academia.

As has already been stated, the author of this blog is a hired writer for a living. And for a while now, since around December last year, writing has taken over her every other freelance field in terms of income by quite a margin. What is this leap due to? Lazy leftist students and academics pursuing easy degrees, of course. Here are 10 observations I have made from writing leftist theses, dissertations and even studies and academic books for a living.

1: Laziness is left-leaning.

Hate to break it to you, but I can count on no hands the number of biology, mathematics or physics PhD dissertations I have had to write. Sure, I get the odd one who needs me to proof read it, or who feels a professional writer could present it in a more attractive way. But they have written 40-100 pages of work and just need a second eye to make sure it’s cool. On the other hand, it would take me all day to list the leftist and social science academic works I have written from scratch. Further to the point, even when I get someone whose essay is in something like ecology or geography, typically they are a leftist high school student or undergraduate who does not want to do any research for a “hard” subject or module they have been forced to take.

2: And they are tardy.

And laziness is expressed in many other ways. They procrastinate buying the essay, not daring come to me until a day before it’s due. They then demand that it be done tomorrow, but it takes a day to get the essay question out of them and work out pricing. Then they apply for an extension and I have to wait again until it’s granted. They are the slowest buyers I ever have.

3: Yes, it’s laziness.

“But oh noes,” the leftists cry, “it can’t be that! No! They must be poor trans womyn of colour who are just so exhausted by working fifty jobs, studying in an evil cishet patriarchal environment and dealing with white professors that disregard their individual nuances!”

Sorry, but it’s laziness. I generally ask my students and clients what sort of grades they get and why they need my help. The usual response: “I can’t be bothered, I want to go to a few more parties, there’s a lot of reading involved, I was up late watching Netflix, I don’t like this module, the deadline is close and I just can’t make it, I’m not a pro like you!” Yes, it’s laziness. By their own admission.

4: …when it isn’t stupidity.

Of course there is another reason why they outsource it, though. They are literally too dim to understand the subject. There are many reasons for these people being in academia, where they do not belong, but the main one is: student loans do not discriminate people who can survive university from people who do not. An example was an individual who had only read Marx’s “Das Capital I” yet felt an MA in Marxist Economics would be easy as it was more social science than finance. It was nowhere near easy enough and they were failing due to not understanding basic concepts such as “human resources are also capital” and “income for labour is driven by the demand and not the supply”, which even full-throttle communists can handle when they have the brain power. This poor person was in over their head because they couldn’t get work on their BS, I mean BA, in Marxist Societies or whatever it was, and their loans company decided to further exploit them.

5: Their academic fields and ideologies are ridiculously simple.

“But, but, but…” the leftists whine, “Marxist Economics is hard. Super duper hard! Not everyone can understand it.”

Bitch please. I wrote that person’s essays in two hours each, with no degree in any Marxist field, using just the internet for resources, getting them close to full marks each time. It’s easy. I will probably be writing their thesis soon as well, and that might take me an afternoon. If a 22 year old university dropout whose only resource is the internet can adequately answer your MA supervisor’s questions in two hours, then it’s not hard. It’s very, very simple.

6: It’s worse the higher up you get.

As I said, I do sometimes write low-level essays in fields such as biology or economics for high school students or university students for whom it’s a minor, obligatory module. But you’d at least expect that the higher up you get in leftist academia, the fewer problems there are in general, the smarter the people are, the less lazy, the more complicated the subject matter…

But you couldn’t be further from the truth. Leftist academia seems to be a filter system where the scum is indeed what rises to the top. PhDs are more likely to have not done any work, to have emotional meltdowns, to be ignorant of their entire subject and to be generally dumb than MAs. MAs are more likely than BAs. And BAs are more likely than high school students. It’s almost as though the people who keep going back to study the same jobless field aren’t the brightest ones…

7: They are either entitled or existentially depressed.

And unsurprisingly, when you take people who are dim, lazy and in over their heads, it doesn’t do their psychological health any favours. On the one hand you get the entitled ones: people who have had life handed to them on a silver platter and demand constant approval and reassurance to keep going. You do anything they don’t like in an essay and they will try and withhold payment, give you bad reviews or send you a massive rant. Of course they always come crawling back, because nobody else does the job as well as I do. But they are outraged whenever anyone does something that hurts their feelings. Some of these people are 40-something grown-ass men and women, studying a second PhD, who bought their way through all their education, yet can’t handle the suggestion that Scarlett O’Hara might be a white woman.

On the other hand you get the ones who have realized it’s all a farce. I have had clients talking to me over Skype, in tears because they genuinely can’t make sense of what their supervisor or lecturer wants them to do, considering leaving university and living with their parents, genuinely terrified about the amount of debt this fruitless MA has accumulated, all for nothing. They are too deep to escape, but not deep enough to be blinded by the general ignorance of the field.

8: Affirmative Action programs create victims.

And those depressed students? Almost all minorities. Homosexual, black, oriental, trans*, low income, physically or mentally disabled… These are people who were doing really well when you consider the grade average for their demographic. So the obvious thing was that universities that they did not qualify for had accepted them on grounds of their demographic. Imagine for a moment you are a straight-Bs student. You’re doing great, headed to a university that offers B-grade courses that you would ace. But hey! You’re a Pontipine!

There aren’t a lot of Pontipines in A-grade universities, so they have programs under which the best performing Pontipines can get in. You’re the best performing Pontipine in the whole country. So you get put into an A-grade course at an A-grade university.

Suddenly you’re surrounded by Wottingers, all whom have an average grade of A.

And now you’re failing the A-grade course, your lecturers are ignoring you and assuming you are a Token who will drop out, you’re wondering where it all went wrong, wondering if Pontipines really are that dumb and spending half your life trying not to be a stereotype. I bet that feels great.

9: They spend all the money they have.

Make no mistake: leftists are poor.

Especially compared to their science counterparts.

So why are these impoverished people spending so much money on outsourcing their degree? Well, because they have to. Their options are wasted years, no degree and debt, or wasted years, debt and a degree. They are willing to literally throw money at their problems until they go away, even if it completely bankrupts them.

10: They are not exceptions.

“Well,” say the leftists, “I am sure there are some people like that, but most of us are smart, hardworking people taking difficult, challenging, socially important courses on our own!”

Again, you’re wrong. I am one person, yet I receive enough essay requests each week that I can keep seven or eight friends and associates in business with my rejects. And the vastest majority of them are leftist academics. I am nowhere near the top search results for “write my essay” or “buy essay”, yet I get countless requests a month, from leftist academics. There are 199,000,000 results for “write my essay” and the whole first page is completely essay-selling companies. There are 159,000,000 results for “buy essays”. Something is keeping these companies afloat. And it isn’t sciences. I am on the mailing list for a few of them, was on the board of a few as well, and was a member of various websites where buyers submit essays and writers write them, first-come-first-serve style. And guess who dominated these companies’ buyers? Engineers. Ha ha, no, seriously: leftist academics. I have written PhD dissertations and articles currently under peer-review to enter leftist academic journals. I have written essays for highschoolers who got bored of their favourite pat-on-the-head-from-teacher is a subject.

It’s endemic. If you are in a class on Marxist Film Theory with twenty people and you have never bought an essay, chances are eighteen of your comrades will eventually outsource work, fifteen of them have bought something and five of them rely entirely on other people’s work. And your field doesn’t matter: I have had radical feminist PhD’s asking me to write about Women’s Bodies As Capital, communist highschoolers asking me to compensate for their laziness with languages and liberal democrat literature MAs asking me to read a 10 page story because they can’t be bothered.

This is not the exception: it is increasingly the norm.