Saturday, June 24, 2017

Prescribing proscriptions

I didn't initially comment on the gay play in the park because, while I have nothing but admiration for Laura Loomer jumping on stage and stating the obvious, I've an aversion to the Hitlery Hitlery Hitlery approach that made the world aware of what happened. The DemsRRealRacists approach has been tried for decades, has failed for decades, and will continue to fail for as long as it is tried.

Additionally, I've little to add that hadn't or wouldn't soon be written or spoken by people of greater talent. A week on, though, there are a few remarks I've yet to see made.

Even more obvious than the veracity of Loomer's assertions is how this production would be treated if the conspirators were all white men murdering a big-eared mulatto or a frumpy dyke in a pantsuit--stage burned, actors assailed, boycotts of corporate sponsors, justice department prosecutions, grovelling apologies, etc.

As it were, the senators who assassinate Trump are all black. Naturally so. After all, who isn't aware of a majority black population that has ever maintained, let alone built, a level of civilization on par with that of first century BC Rome?

Free speech by the right is interpreted as violence while violence by the left is interpreted as free speech.

This goes beyond cultural and political theater (heh). What happened following Caesar's assassination potentially has serious implications today. Those implications are lost on the vast majority of virtue-signalling charlatans who went to, celebrated, and sponsored the play, vanishingly few of whom have any historical knowledge beyond Lincoln freeing the slaves and Hitler killing the Jews.

- Within a couple years of the murder, many of the assassins were dead--the most famous ones at Philippi, others at the hands of fellow Romans complying with official orders.

- Trump, a controversial populist with fervent supporters but also legions of implacable enemies, was replaced by an actual authoritarian who politically neutered every opponent he didn't force feed an extra helping of iron to.

- The authoritarian who stepped in after Trump came from a background in which becoming princeps would've been unthinkable to the power structure of the day were it not for Trump's extrajudicial killing.

- The authoritarian who followed Trump came from a family with little power at the time. Trump's successor put into place a new ruling structure that lasted for a century.

- The pre-assassination establishment--those involved directly in the murder, those complicit in it, and those who merely cheered it on--had sat atop the political and cultural orders for centuries. After Trump expired under Pompey's statue, they lost their power forever. From that point on, all the way through the fall of the western empire nearly 500 years later, they would never regain it.

- The slain man's approval ratings were mediocre. His successor's were stellar.

- Trump was a libertine of his day, a serial philanderer who enjoyed grabbing the pussies of other men's wives. His successor, in contrast, decreed marriage laws that would make Ned Flanders blush.

- Trump was the first Roman ever to be deified. Do you really still need to ask where the "god-emperor" identifier comes from?

Beware the Ire of Deplorables.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

you say Trump frequently when you mean Caesar.

Audacious Epigone said...

It's intentional.

sykes.1 said...

Octavian, later Augustus Caesar, is regarded as the best of the emperors. Nonetheless, he was an emperor, and the Republic was finished.

Feryl said...

Even more obvious than the veracity of Loomer's assertions is how this production would be treated if the conspirators were all white men murdering a big-eared mulatto or a frumpy dyke in a pantsuit--stage burned, actors assailed, boycotts of corporate sponsors, justice department prosecutions, grovelling apologies, etc.

I dunno where I saw it, but someone pointed out that the conservatives (correctly) complaining about double standards never finds purchase with liberals and even some moderates. They view (at least some aspects thereof) society moving inexorably in one positive direction, albeit with some hiccups (dubbed "reactionary " ideas/people) along the way. Since they've deluded themselves about the popularity and power of their movement, anyone who gets in the way is seen as an unwanted and strange interloper who needs to be arrested/beaten/shamed/fired to discourage others from making choosing the "wrong" path. Virtue, as defined by principled, honest, and fair behavior, no longer matters. Since you're fighting the good fight with no possibility that you could be wrong or that your actions could backfire, Nietzsche's warning about fighting monsters no longer applies.

BTW, as we've seen to an increasing degree since the end of WW-2, Western countries pre-emptively stamp out right-wing movements that merely threaten to re-activate reactionary movements, often times before any serious offense has been committed. Germany, for obvious reasons, is the most repressive. I guess they just busted a "paramilitary" right-wing group that was building camps/hideouts in the woods. The MSM/cultural Marxist politicians still let professional Left-wing agitator activists have a platform, granting them credibility, even when their words/actions have ruined careers and sparked bloodshed.

Remember the GSS not showing cucking about miscegenation until the mid 80's? I just saw a thing about 70's Britain. The National Front attained quite a following at the time, especially among young proles who couldn't care less about fascist/nazi labelling since they were born after WW-2. It seems like the (relatively) sunny mid-late 80's, along with refinements in cultural Marxist pressuring, led to the popular belief that right-wing nationalism was poisonous crap that only losers and dinosaurs believed. It may be hard to believe, but the 70's were the last decade in which good-faith, relaxed debate was permitted about HBD. Sure, most liberals at the time were delusional, but they weren't that arrogant about it yet.

Hypocrisy charges never matter, either; it's alright for white liberals to avoid low-class NAMs like the plague, 'cuz one day people of all races/nationality/income level will all get along perfectly well. Until such time that it comes to pass, however, white liberals are free to having nothing to do with proles of all races.

Mere belief in the right stuff, and having the sense to not outright acknowledge what your actual behavior reveals, is all that really matters.

Feryl said...

Also, why does it take the Right so long to get it's head out of it's ass? I've seen claims that it's too individualistic; in the sense of treating people like individuals with their own circle of associates and moral agency, I guess that's true. Even Steve Sailer would rather pin the mayhem of BLM on a handful of careerist SOBs than on black sociopathy.

Leftists are quick to claim that by default, a person repping a certain group is incapable of having certain characteristics. E.g., a white person will never have true compassion for what a black person goes thru everyday.

Leftists love to generalize and pit groups against each other, but the right isn't allowed to do such things on it's own terms. When the Right finally works up the nerve to start fighting battles as a team that doesn't get hung up on individual characteristics, it's usually a sign that society has been destroyed by Leftists who promote parasites and deviants (criminals, druggies, financial parasites, perverts, immigrant strivers, etc.). The cult of non-judgementalism runs amok, and "ordinary" folk start to feel crushed by the weight of so many assholes dragging us down after decades of enabling.

Feryl said...

If anyone wonders just why Leftists have become so rigid, think about this: how would you feel about your righteousness if you won nearly every battle for 50 years (the only real exceptions being the war on drugs, the mass incarceration policies of the 80's and 90's, and stigmatizing of pedophiles) ? Of course that's why they act as though they literally are totally right about everything. Righties are told to examine the integrity and impact of every one of their beliefs; is it selfish, is it racist, is it fair, is it, well, right? Of course, we, being only human, sometimes come up short in these evaluations. We start to doubt the virtue of a position, and it becomes that much easier for Leftists to bully us into backing down, apologizing, ceding yet more territory to Leftists as though they needed any more.

chris said...

The cavalier attitude the left is having with respect to violence and the rhetoric surrounding it leads me to think they think this is all a game.

Had the GOP shooter been a better aim, and wiped out the GOP majority in congress, I would not be surprised if it triggered civil war.

We are teetering out over the precipice of an abyss that once fallen into, cannot be peacefully gotten out of. Yet like an entitled, drunken, ignorant teenager, the left keeps pushing us closer to that edge.

Audacious Epigone said...

It may be hard to believe, but the 70's were the last decade in which good-faith, relaxed debate was permitted about HBD. Sure, most liberals at the time were delusional, but they weren't that arrogant about it yet.

The tipping point in my mind came in 1978 when EO Wilson was humiliated at a conference by having a pitcher of water dumped on his head. I wasn't cognizant enough of the intellectual landscape at the time, but I've heard many older HBDers claim that there was a brief thawing out period in the mid-nineties as well (with AmRen being carried on C-Span, etc).

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It's the moral arc of the universe nonsense. That sense of moral righteous, paired with a desire to make a contribution, means leftists--especially younger leftists who've grown up in a world where their side controls everything--have to try and be boots stomping on rightist faces.

Chris,

Yes, counterfactuals being what they are, if instead of injuring one he'd killed 20, would history see it as something like archduke Ferdinand or Martin Luther King? It doesn't look like it'll end up being a "watershed" moment, but it easily could have been, which means that just such a moment could occur any day now.

Anonymous said...

tl;dr

Apres Trump, le deluge.

Feryl said...

The tipping point in my mind came in 1978"

Remember that GSS breakdown about interracial marriage? I was reading a book that said that by the 1980's, the G.I. Gen (and therefore, previous generations) was largely irrelevant to culture. The G.I.s were the last generation to offer any kind of resistance; if memory serves, they came out about 50/50 on whether to ban that kind of marriage. Meanwhile about 2/3 of Silents were against a ban, while 80-90% of Boomers (!) were against it as well.

Generations that experience prosperity in their adolescence and adulthood are are more likely to be emboldened to push for defiance of norms. Silents and Boomers have given birth to younger generations that now consider the culture of their parents to be "normal". The generational scale is now way off-balance. Silents and Boomers egged on a war between their lofty ideals and the pragmatism of Losts and G.I.s. The balance got shifted towards Silents and Boomers due to the passage of time and newfound prosperity. Yet these generations have scarcely lost any weight in recent decades, no matter how foolish or out-dated their ideology is. X-ers in particular can't settle for the idea that it's for the Boomers to set the agenda as they see fit; more often than not they do things on their terms with so little concern for the long-term future for even themselves, let alone younger generations.