Mailvox: fencing, converged

A swordsman comments on the convergence in the historical fencing community in Europe.

I practice historical European swordsmanship as a hobby. Recently, two of the most gifted and well-regarded fencers/teachers in our small community have been under attack, including calls to boycott merchandise bearing their names, because they are “Nazis”.  IOW, they publicly object to the ongoing invasion of their native Sweden. Also, in general the community is being “converged” and made unwelcoming to anyone right of Lenin, following your descriptions of the phenomenon to the letter.

Formerly politics was not a viciously divisive matter in our community. Heck, when I first started 15 years ago libertarianism was probably the most represented political persuasion.  It has gotten so bad that the vocal SJWism is likely keeping some Christians and conservatives from joining the community. The irony of SJWs trying to drive Christians and nationalists away from the study of an art which was originally practiced by Medieval knights cannot be overstated.

Enough men in the community recognize this as nonsense that there is something of a counter-movement coalescing, although it is still in the very early and informal stages. As the leading researcher on SJW convergence, is there any particular advice you could offer?  In any case, these events are yet more confirmation of theory.

There are two options. Either drive out all the SJWs by banning all reference to politics and attempts to thought-police the community or leave en masse, form a new organization, and be damned sure to keep all the SJWs out. Either make it an explicitly Christian or nationalist organization, and be sure that whoever is in charge is not overly eager to pursue female membership; those are the men who are primarily responsible for convergence happening in the first place because they will excuse literally anything so long as it gives them an opportunity to have some women around.

The most important thing is to lead by example. Don’t argue, don’t warn, and don’t negotiate. If I were in this fencer’s position, I would start a new organization with the two leading guys and refuse to have anything to do with any of the known SJWs while welcoming those willing to leave the old organization for the new one.

Mailvox: righteousness and virtue

A reader asks about a distinction:

I have recently been reading Aristotle to get my head around many of the arguments you make against Jordan Peterson. As such, I am curious about what you see being the difference between acting righteously and virtuously, or are they one and the same to you.

Acting righteously: acting in accordance with God’s Will. Only God can determine this, Man can only make the attempt without full knowledge of whether he is doing so successfully or not.

Acting virtuously: acting in accordance with a specified virtue. These are mostly defined and determined by Man, so one can behave virtuously and know that one is doing so, except in the cases where virtue and righteousness happen to overlap. But one can act in a virtuous manner that is unrighteous; not all Satanists are cowardly and even a murderous thief can be charitable with his ill-gotten gains.

Aristotelian moral virtue falls somewhere in between virtue and righteousness. It is more akin to what I would describe as eucivicism, or civic virtue. Due to his philosophy being pre-Christian, I tend to be more influenced by Aristotle’s thinking on intellectual virtue than on moral virtue, although eucivicism is definitely desirable from both worldly and philosophical perspectives.

Mailvox: by their fruits

Despite the protestations of his defenders, I have yet to hear a single example of anyone becoming a genuine Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian as a result of Jordan Peterson’s non-proselytizing non-Christian witness. I have, however, heard the opposite:

I forget the exact quote and am unable to find it now, but I believe you once said that Jordan Peterson’s philosophy may be helpful to a few really messed up young men but is overall more damaging and detrimental to young men who are well-adjusted and psychologically healthy. When I read that (or heard it, you may have said it in a Darkstream), I agreed not for any theoretical or philosophical reason, but from experience. Jordan Peterson’s influence is in part to blame for my life taking a turn for the worse.

I grew up Christian, was heavily involved in my church as a young man. Personal events in my early college career disillusioned me somewhat regarding my church and my involvement deteriorated. However, I still fully believed in Christian teachings. I graduated college, got married, joined the military, avoided debt, worked hard. I had always been more or less straight-laced.

Enter Jordan Peterson.

I have no idea who it was who first introduced me to Jordan Peterson, sometime during my wife’s pregnancy. I saw him pop up now and then on different blogs. He said some interesting things, and things which I agreed with, such as ideas on gender and biological sex. I watched some of his lectures, and noticed that he always looked and sounded as if he was thinking out loud to himself, but I didn’t attach any significance to it. I just assumed it was his style of speaking.

In listening to his lectures, I began to get a general sense that he believed that God was not an entity but a powerful force stemming from our choices, choices that to Peterson had natural consequences, good or evil. To him, as far as I understood it, these consequences were ultimately unavoidable. If you chose badly, they would catch up to you, and if you chose well, they would reward you and allow you to live a good life. Basically, “Chaos and Order.” God was the force behind chaos and order, not a god, per se, and the line between chaos and order was the real place to be.

This idea sunk in. I had never thought about it in those terms, and it shook my faith. I began to doubt His existence. Maybe God was just an inexorable natural force and not the real deal. And, too, the marital problems and selfish, sinful decisions I had made incentivized me to look for an escape from God’s judgment. Sin always looks to justify itself, and sinners are no different. I wanted to justify my sin, justify myself, and avoid the consequences. All of it together brewed into a perfect storm, which subsequently broke. I told my wife I didn’t know if God existed, that I doubted, and that I hated Him for imposing restrictions on my life. It was hardly coherent. She was understandably shocked and appalled.

But I want to be absolutely clear in order to leave no doubt in your mind or the mind of those you may show this email to—I never doubted God’s existence prior to Jordan Peterson. Peterson’s philosophy shook my belief and deepened my despair and destructive spiral.

Jordan Peterson is a sower of Chaos in the guise of a prophet of Order. It should not be surprising that those who accept his guidance and follow his teachings soon find themselves wandering away from both truth and Truth alike.

Jordan Peterson is NOT a man of the Right, he is NOT on our side, and he is NOT helping anyone come to the the truth. He is like a Menshevik opposing the Bolsheviks who have gone too far in order to fix Communism.

Let’s figure out how I can dispense with my white privilege and so that you can tell me when the Left is going too far, since they clearly can, and that’s what this debate is about, about political correctness. It’s about the Left going too far, and I think it’s gone too far in many ways. and I’d like to
figure out exactly how and when so the reasonable Left could make its ascendance again and we could quit all this nonsense.
– Jordan Peterson, Debate with Michael Dyson, Michelle Goldberg, and Stephen Fry.

Mailvox: immigration and Boomers

A Man of the West shares how his attempt to introduce immigration heresy into a proud hyphenated-American family went:

I’ve been a reader of your blog and viewer of your videos for some time now, but I’ll cut to the chase rather than linger in my own backstory. An hour ago I was on the phone with my parents that live on the opposite side of the country (dad is a boomer, mom is early gen-x) and the conversation quickly turned to politics and history as it always does.They are Reagan-era right-wing conservatives. I  wouldn’t consider them neocons, but tomato tomAHto at this point. Gradually the topic transformed into immigration being more detrimental to a nation than warfare. As with any historical discussion with a boomer, the subject quickly returned to exclusively America. So I introduced to him the idea that even the Ellis Island immigrants, legal as they may have been, were a net negative to the American nation and culture.

Now, in an Italian/Irish immigrant family, to say something like this is sacrilege. But that’s when I could tell I was getting somewhere, because my dad started spewing post-modernist, globalist, pro-Babel propaganda like the Littlest Chickenhawk on a week-long soy bender. He even tried to drag out some JBP quotes until I dropped the “he authored a 2015 UN Development Panel report” on him. Then came the stuff I had heard him slip into past conversations, like “culture is always changing” and “no culture remains the same. History shows a constant fluctuation of cultures”. These always seemed like wishy-washy public-education level slogans parroted to give the illusion of sounding like you are well-versed in a wide scope of history. But this time I wasn’t tolerating it.

I’m not going to waste your time with a play-by-play review of the whole argument, but in the end I calmly told him “You are so focused on the microcosm that you cannot see the macrocosmic implications of the Tower-of-Babel agenda that you are supporting, and you are attempting to excuse your fear of the duty and suffering required to fight for Christianity, Western Civilization, Aristotelian rationality, and Truth by capitulating to this idiotic idea that ‘cultures will always change’. It is a lie to cover up a fear, and it is rationalizing surrender.”

Any advice on teaching an old dog new tricks?

Just keep standing calmly, confidently, and respectfully by the truth. Don’t meet anger with anger, just keep calling out the falsehoods and deceptions as they are presented to you. As the reader has already observed, he’s over the target and his father is already in a state of cognitive dissonance. The trick is to avoid making the correct path out of that dissonance more unpleasant than a) it has to be and b) than the alternative of full delusion.

A Reagan conservative is halfway there. But it’s not unknown for them to retreat into liberalism, even SJWism, simply because the pain of the truth is too great for their soft Boomer sensibilities. So, it’s not wise to punch them in the mouth no matter how much nonsense they spew in their intellectual flailing about.

You will know they have been convicted of the truth, even if they haven’t accepted it yet, when they desperately try to change the subject to you, your motivations, and your shortcomings. Don’t take the bait, just calmly ask, “What does that have to do with 20th century immigration and its consequences?” and steer them back to the subject they are now trying to avoid addressing.

Mailvox: the day she figured it out

Kudos and all, but the frightening thing about this email is the fact that this women genuinely and legitimately believed, for decades, that she was physically capable of going toe-to-toe with men. Thanks, Hollywood!

The day I figured it out

Not a natural athlete, but I did devote 7 years to martial arts back in my 30s.  3 to 4 times a week, excellent conditioning, but to be frank, I was horrible at sparring.  Think Barney Fife, vibrating and completely ineffective.  I hung in there, spurred on by too many martial arts movies and the media myth that a 120 lb. trained woman could take on a man in a fight.  And it was light touch sparring because of Insurance Risk.

So, there was one last special class to make that dark-colored belt; Punching/Kicking Class.  An all-day seminar where you were paired off with someone your size, they would hold a 6-inch-thick pad and you full contact punched and kicked them …then you would hold the pad and they would punch and kick.  Heady stuff, my Gi was snapping, there was a satisfying “thwack” sound, I was quite proud and kinda hoping for some bloody knuckles and a need to “tape up”.  Then it came time for me to hold the bag.  Now mind you, I was paired off with a small man, a short skinny ex-navy grunt, just my size.  He pulled off one full force punch and I was on my butt and there were tears on my face.  I got back up, took a deeper stance, and once again was back on the floor.  I kept trying but it was obvious to me I wasn’t helping this guy practice his punching and kicking at all.  So, I asked the instructor if I could just do the punching kicking practice but not hold the bag.  He took me for a walk outside the studio.  I have since learned that is a Bad Sign.  He explained to me the point of the class was being able to take the punching and kicking, the point was to be able to hold the bag, to be able to take the punch.  And I suddenly understood, it was basic physics really.  In my head, it was a scene out of a Beautiful Mind, with Vectors, Force Lines, and Angles appearing in red.  But it was just me with my mouth open going, “Huh”

Men are stronger than women.  Go figure.  It is basic physics; the bones are denser and the muscles are heavier.  And I realized this whole time, I had been a minnow swimming with sharks.  That most men could take out most women with a punch or two.  Heck, most men can take out another man with a sucker punch, but I am talking a face front fight; guy wins most every time.  And especially bigger men.  The fact I was so shocked told me a bunch about how naive I was and how much the media lied about this.  I suddenly had this whole new respect for most men; most of them were walking around with the ability to take down smaller folks; and they don’t.  They just plain don’t.  They hold doors open and walk on the dangerous side of the sidewalk and go out to check night time noises.  Basically IMHO most of guys in America are heroes.

I firmly believe that everyone, male and female, would benefit greatly from being physically beaten down at least once in their lives before their 18th birthday. It is a salutary experience.

Back in my fighting days, a girl I was dating joined our dojo for a while. After doing a drill that involved getting kicked repeatedly in the stomach, she was a bit wide-eyed and excited, and exclaimed, “I’ve never been hit in the stomach before!”

“Have you ever been hit in the face?” I asked her.

“No,” she said. So, I hit her in the chin with a backfist hard enough to snap her head back, but not hard enough to knock her down.

“What did you do that for!” she demanded about 15 seconds later, once she stopped staggering around and got over the usual shock.

“Did you feel that disorientation, the way you couldn’t quite believe that someone actually hit you in the face?”

“Well, yeah!” A mere two syllables, but spoken with deep passion and accompanied by an intense and narrow-eyed glare.

“See, that’s normal. Everyone feels like that the first time they take a good shot to the head. Now you know what it feels like. Next time you get hit, you’ll be ready for it, and you can fight your way through it.”

She wasn’t quite as appreciative of the lesson as I expected. It was strange, but the way she used to tell the story made me sound kind of like a psycho.

Mailvox: unorthodox or enemy?

JD doesn’t understand why I identify Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro as enemies rather than unorthodox allies:

I’ve read your blog and watched your videos related to Jordan Peterson with a great deal of interest. One of the members of a book club I’m in picked 12 Rules and we have been reading it and discussing it. (Everybody in the club seems to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.)  My adult sons have enthusiastically sent me several videos featuring JP debating various people and my kids see JP as a valuable Culture Warrior and I tend to agree.

My question is, how do we draw the boundaries between who is orthodox and who is heterodox when it comes to the Culture Wars? When does heterodoxy become heresy and the person is now an enemy?

For example, within Christianity, historically the non-negotiable is the Word of God- the Living and the Written. To be a Christian, one must believe and follow Jesus Christ as God in the flesh, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father. The Bible must be viewed as authored by God and authoritative. We have Scripture and creeds that have more or less defined the boundaries of what can be legitimately defined as “Christian.”

This, of course, doesn’t mean that Christians don’t disagree about a variety of things doctrinally, in church polity, and personal practice. This reality, however, doesn’t mean it is a free for all and we cannot employ terms like “orthodox,” “heterodox,” and even “heretic.”

Is there similar boundary defining principles and nomenclature in the Culture War? When does someone’s beliefs or practices move them from the Ally list to the Enemy list?

Back to Jordan Peterson. I don’t believe he is a Christian. I disagree with all of the Jungian psychobabble. I agree that he seems to be unstable in his own mental health and has some delusions of grandeur. (I know for a fact that he is a terrible writer.)

I won’t be a bit surprised if “something” comes out about him in the future and the wheels come off the wagon, but for now, I see him as being on “our side” of the Culture War- he is anti-political correctness, anti-identity politics, he believes in biological gender and traditional gender roles, he believes in meritocracy and personal freedom and responsibility, also, he generally makes the right people angry. Is this guy not an ally?

I remain unconvinced that he is an enemy based upon his not knowing the nuances of Jewish IQ studies or the conspiracy theory type arguments put forth about globalism or supporting pedophilia or any of the “controlled opposition” theorizing. Much of that seems tenuous at best- especially when compared to the black and white areas of agreement I do have with Jordan Peterson.

Why isn’t it enough to say, “I agree with JP here and here and here, but I disagree with him here and here and here, but hey, he is on our side”? What crosses the line into heresy? (I feel similarly about Ben Shapiro- I get the “chickenhawk” stuff and I wish he supported Trump, but the guy isn’t he doing great work in the Culture Wars?)

What makes your Enemy Status for people like JP and Shapiro even more confusing is the people that you don’t distance yourself from- I’ll take Shapiro over Milo any day in the Culture Wars, and if JP is a nut-job snake oil salesman, Alex Jones is every bit a nut-job who sells literal snake oil on his website. I don’t get it.

How do you determine who is orthodox and heterodox, who is an ally and who is a heretic? How much uniformity of belief is necessary for unity in the Culture War?

To which I responded:

You and your kids are totally wrong. Jordan Peterson is a paid up, committed professional globalist. His objectives are directly opposed to the survival of America and the West.

If someone was trying to fix Nazism, you wouldn’t say that he’s a Jewish ally. If someone was trying to fix Communism, you wouldn’t say that he is a capitalist ally. Jordan Peterson is trying to fix globalism. He is trying to destroy nationalism, your nation, and your people.

He is not an ally of any kind.

The fact that you would take Ben Shapiro over Milo just indicates how utterly clueless you are about these things. I’m sorry to be so direct, but it’s absolutely true. Shapiro, Peterson, et al are 100 percent enemies. There is literally nothing good about them or their objectives.

And further to which:

A civic nationalist is a heterodox ally. They are, for the most part, merely mistaken, deluded, naive, or ignorant rather than evil. A globalist, an imperialist, or a tribalist who seeks the destruction of the West or any Western nation is an enemy, especially if they wear the false cloak of a civic nationalist to conceal their true objectives. Donald Trump, Alex Jones, Milo, and Mike Cernovich are all pro-American civic nationalists and therefore allies of the nationalist Right even though their nationalism is not orthodox nationalism. Jordan Peterson and George Soros are both globalists who are self-avowed enemies of nationalism. Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin are left-wing racial imperialists and therefore enemies of the Right and of nationalism. Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and a whole host of commentators both “liberal” and “conservative” are tribalists who are seeking to, at best, take advantage of, and at worst, destroy America and the West for the benefit of their particular tribes.

Just as there are Christian non-negotiables, there are nationalist non-negotiables. Anyone who subscribes to any variant of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that “the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations” is an enemy of America and the West, no matter how much they claim to love either of them. Our side is not against identity politics. Our side is against having to play identity politics in the first place, but once multiple and competing identities have been permitted to establish themselves in a polity, identity politics are the new reality and playing according to their well-established rules is an absolute necessity. Those who claim to be against identity politics at this point are nothing more than outdated and irrelevant posers.

Binary thinkers tend to have a serious problem recognizing that just because X criticizes the way Y is going about achieving his objectives, that does not mean that X is opposed to either Y or Y’s objectives. For example, Lenin tried to fix the economic failures of communism with his New Economic Policy of 1922, which instituted “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control while socialized state enterprises were to operate on a profit basis”, but that did not make him either an enemy of communism or a capitalist ally.

Mailvox: the irrelevance of psychology

A reader emails to write of his reflections on the way in which the psychological approach is entirely unsuited to handle genuine evil.

On a serious note, the JBP discussion brought up something I wrote out and saved.  You saved me the same few hours of reading, to reach similar conclusions.  I’m disturbed by the dreams and unmoored personality, and disturbed similarly by the “Clean your room.  Take your meds.  Be Nice”  set of commands.

Normally, suicide prevention is one of those mandatory training things that you nod through and then forget immediately.  We had the unexpected benefit of having parents come in to “share their story” about how their son suicided at age 21, after years of drug issues.  The emotional testimonial is one that I loathe, so I was busy tuning them out.  It was crisis acting in action, complete with the special choreographed music for the slide show.  But in the middle of mom’s opening speech about her dead son, she mentioned reading Gene Wolfe stories and going to conventions hosted by the local Science Fiction Society.  Oh, now you got my focus.

The father was distant and not really involved with his family, and mom was associated with the SF scene in some way.  I had read the Castalia House blog posts and The Last Closet, so at this point I tuned out the mom and soundtrack and paid attention to the boy’s pictures.  What really got my attention were the activities the pictures came from: Scouts, swim team, boys’ choir, lead role in the school musical…. 

Oh, ye cats indeed.

The pictures were random and not in time sequence. Starting at about age 9-10 the boy’s stance, facial expressions, and attitude began changing in the pictures.  It became overacting and getting outrageous in pictures shown to the public.  The behavior changes did not look normal for the age. It was about age 15-16 where his drug use went into heavy opiate addiction, according to parents, and the pictures shown were of a ravaged young man with some serious ghosts in his eyes.

Short of adding peer counselor or gymnastics to the above list, it’s hard to consider a worse combination of potential exposure to pedophiles or homosexual groomers.  After ten minutes, I wondered if drugs were used as part of the grooming, or if he turned to hard opiates to try forgetting.  Moira Greyland’s words came back to haunt me for the next couple days.Were the parents blind to this possibility?

I thought I had this out of my system, but then came the issues concerning Jordan Peterson.  I listened to about one and a half of his videos, and tuned out.  Your analysis, including the diabolical influence, was on target.  My thoughts came out of background.  Peterson advocated therapeutic measures to mitigate the pain, and nothing to stop it, defend the youth, and counterattack.  Then there were his writing about the cannibalistic and incestuous dreams.  This does NOTHING to help young men.  &*^{0f7560f409a8026d7b9d46efb18eca7d6fc1e8f4d90e8abec425fae450ca0aef} that, there are souls at risk.

Mailvox: opinions solicited and otherwise

A Darkstream viewer comments on a recent video:

Spot on. One additional tendency worth noting: Gammas feel an almost irresistible urge to contribute their unsolicited opinions. Most folks do this from time-to-time, of course, and it is usually relatively harmless. But with the Gamma, it is pathological and constant. The need for attention, for adulation, means he must do this all the time.

For the Gamma seeking to rid himself of Gamma behavior patterns, as you said in the video, it is often preferable to just shut the fuck up. Fact of the matter is, smart or not, Gammas are insufferable toolbags and nobody wants to hear their opinions, even if the Gamma is right. No, especially if the Gamma is right. The only thing worse than a loser is a loser who, by some quirk of fate, chance, whatever… is actually right about something. He’ll lord it over everyone and talk himself up incessantly. He’ll milk it far past the point of good sense.

I know, I did enough of this in my time as a Gamma.

If a Gamma (or a former one, I suppose) feels the desire to contribute his opinion, it is often best to do so in private, one-on-one, and not speak of it further, not use it for social gain, posturing, etc… This increases the chance that the opinion will be appreciated, rather than dismissed as coming from a passive-aggressive ass.

Put another way: let others take the credit for a while. Serve and follow – for those worthy of those things, anyway – don’t try to command. It never works for the Gamma.

This is one of the most readily identifiable aspects of the Gamma, which is his insistence on offering unsolicited advice, opinion, and correction. Not only is it unsolicited, it is absolutely unwanted, particularly when it can do absolutely no good at all.

There are few things more infuriating than presenting something that is clearly finished, only to have the immediate response be, “do you know what you should have done instead?” No, I really don’t, and I especially do not want to know right now, even in the unlikely event that you happen to be right.

The petty delight with which Gammas appear to take in attempting to crush the joy in the accomplishments of others is possibly their most despicable trait. I don’t know if they are genuinely seeking to be helpful, if they are seeking to demoralize, if they are being passive-aggressively mean, if they are constitutionally giving a compliment without providing a complaint to balance it, if it is an expression of envy, or if it is some combination of these motivations that depends upon the circumstances.

But unless you are the other individual’s coach, mentor, or boss, do NOT offer criticism unless it is specifically requested when something is first announced or shown to you. It not only doesn’t make the other person appreciate your helpful contribution to their future success, it makes them want to punch you in the face… and determined to leave you out of the loop next time. The correct thing to do is say, “congratulations!” The polite thing to do is throw in a compliment or two, if you can honestly do so. And then leave it at that.

What positive purpose is served when telling someone that something that is obviously finished could have, or should have, been different?

I’m not saying that you should lie if someone asks you if you like something. If you don’t like it, then don’t say you do. But if you do, then say so, find something nice to say about it, and leave it at that. There is a time and place for criticism; the moment of the initial unveiling is absolutely not one of them. Relentless negativity is not attractive to anyone, and creative men and women are particularly averse to it by necessity.

That being said, I have learned over the years that most people’s opinions of incomplete art are totally useless. I call it “the drums are too loud” phenomenon. It used to drive me crazy, when playing an early rough cut of a Psykosonik song for someone, that they would almost inevitably fail to have any useful opinion on the melody, the rhythm, the structure, the lyrics, or the vocal stylings, but would reliably concentrate on something entirely trivial like the mix. I finally stopped letting anyone hear anything that wasn’t at least a prospective final mix.

UPDATE: NH attempts to answer my implied question:

You said you weren’t sure if gammas offer unsolicited advice because “they are seeking to demoralize, if they are being passive-aggressively mean, if they are constitutionally giving a compliment without providing a complaint to balance it, if it is an expression of envy, or if it is some combination of these motivations that depends upon the circumstances.”

It starts because they have no experience and little to offer, so in a sense, it’s meant to be harmless, maybe helpful in its own way. Criticizing feels smart when you’re young, and it’s easy. They honestly don’t know at first how much pain and sacrifice lead up to presenting that finished product.

Over time, however, they learn how they get a strong emotional reaction when they do it… and that’s power. If there’s one thing that a gamma is dying of thirst for, it’s power over others. So, they keep doing it until their bitterness eats them alive.

Mailvox: Hope for Generation Zyklon

A reader sends in these optimistic observations of the postmillennial generation.

Gen-Z and Hope in the Post-Institutional Age

Recently at our church over a dozen graduating high school seniors were honored and their post-graduation plans were highlighted. Every young man is either majoring in engineering or a trade like welding, or electrical. Every young woman except one is going into nursing or the medical field. Why is this significant? This is Generation Z and they aren’t fooling around. They’ve seen their older Millennial siblings and cousins struggle with their worthless degrees and jobs, and they are already taking a different path. Gen-Z supports Trump, and most importantly, there’s no give-up in them or hopelessness, even with all of the problems we face.

If you are an older Millennial or Gen-X like myself, you have seen nothing but loss if you are politically right of center. Vox once mentioned Millennials know something is lost, but not what, but Gen-X watched it happened. This gave us perspective, but it also gave us unbridled cynicism.  Gen-Z doesn’t really live in a world of conservative losers and cucks, as they are now irrelevant. They only see a tough road ahead, but they are determined.

I’ve noticed that older Millennials and Gen-X have a problem. Whenever somebody on our side says they are going to do something, or fight back, or even express hope of winning, we have to repress our cynicism. Why? The conservatives turned out to be the biggest bunch of feckless, stupid, political losers in the last century, and we were dumb enough to believe in them for a while. It’s nearly impossible for us to believe anyone right of center can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to do anything meaningful, so we default to cynicism.

Who can remember American cars from the 70s and 80s? If you do, you will remember they produced some of the worst vehicles in history. We inherited them from our parents in high school and we went off to college with them.  Our experience with them was so bad that GM lost an entire generation of buyers. Quite purposefully, they stopped marketing to us and went for the younger generation who knew nothing of GM.  Microsoft had to do the same thing as the bad PR from the late 90’s and early 2000’s turned off millions of potential buyers. But a14-year-old Xbox owner knows nothing of that and doesn’t care.

In the same way, the failures from the 1960s until the present are history to an 18-year-old.

Gen-Z has a big advantage as they are essentially starting at the bottom.  The institutions are all gone. The corporations are all SJW-converged. Free speech is mostly gone. They don’t know a different world than this, but they do know that this is the wrong state of affairs. They didn’t get to see the massive societal destruction of the last 50 years, which is a good thing. Which is more demoralizing, seeing something you love being destroyed or walking in after the destruction to pick up the pieces?

So, if you are Gen-X, don’t mock them. Instead, help them and lead them. If they have a good idea, support them. Don’t be cynical. Don’t tell them about all of the failures you’ve seen or how it will never work. You just might be surprised.

Lead by example in technology. Do the small things around them like using Brave and not Chrome. Use DuckDuckGo and not Google. Don’t worry about being perfect, just do what you can and let them know that complete privacy in today’s world isn’t possible, but that doesn’t mean you can’t fight back.

Help them build their own platforms, and discourage them from building platforms based upon a converged corporation like Facebook or Google. If they get in bed with them, their livelihood could be gone in an instant or they might be tempted to compromise in order to keep the money coming in. 
Always support truth in all things. The little truths all support and belong to the big Truth.

Join an actual brick-and-mortar church and support it. Don’t gossip about it, the members, or disparage it without sound reason. Let Gen-Z know that being a member is Biblical, and that you support the institution, even if you have to clean it out yourself.

Finally, be positive. I realize this is nearly impossible for many of us after so many years of seeing things fall apart, but don’t buy into the secular eschatology that they are going to win. They are not! The future belongs to those who believe in the Good, True, and Beautiful, because those things belong to God.

Mailvox: from participation prize to SJW

A reader drops some recent science on us:

The following is part of a comment at a subscription-only site that caught my attention, as it tied in so well with the shrunken-amygdala discussions held so often at VP.  It’s forwarded with permission of the comment’s author, with the bold/italics in the original:

How have humans been turned into snowflakes where emotions are in control and learning has been suppressed?  This article explains it.  When reward is uncertain (even if 90{1983971bb5de6643cbeaedda99937c85acb0dd096e528b5d15681018ba042139} likely), learning in the medial prefrontal cortex is enabled by the dopaminergic reward seeking system.  But if reward is certain, the learning circuits of the medial prefrontal cortex are disabled. 

It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view; if you already know enough to get the reward with certainty, there is no point in wasting further effort to learn more. 

What pertaining to rewards has critically changed over the past couple of generations?  Everyone now receives a reward for participating!  Not just the winner of the race.  Not just the smart student who studied hard and aced the test.  Everybody gets an unconditional hence certain reward.

These unconditional rewards have turned off learning.  The younger generation is broadly liberal and progressive because their ability to learn has been systematically shut off since childhood.  No wonder they act like spoiled children.  They have never learned to grow up!

We have a very big and very serious generational problem.  Those unconditional rewards aren’t just silly; they are literally mentally crippling.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the science, but I have to wonder if this phenomenon actually re-inforces the under-development of the amygdalae in susceptible individuals, so that the “participation trophy syndrome” has helped to make the SJWs even worse than they might have been.

I have always known that learning how to compete, how to win, and how to lose, is important, but I never had any idea that a failure to do so might lead to literal insanity. It also explains why SJWs are never able to learn from their past mistakes.