Answer: Yes, Because...

...they are primarily Leftist/communists, not gay rights activists (unless it is convenient). Even Muslims who hate and kill gays get higher ranking than gays in the Messiah-allocated Victimhood hierarchy. All candidates for Victimhood status should understand that when their usefulness evaporates, it's "under the bus" for you.

Can Charlotte Pride parade exclude Gays for Trump float?

The Hierarchy of Sanctimony: “I Am the Messiah I Have Been Waiting For”

While reading Peter A. Taylor’s analysis of Moldbug’s commentaries, I got sidelined by a link to the following observation:

“We are inheritors of a long, increasingly-complicated blame game, which cannot have any simple origin. My (provisional and low-value) intuition is that Christianity-Calvinism-Purtianism-Progressivism (-Neoreaction?) represents a process of consistently exacerbated sanctimony — which should not be hastily dissolved into its human-biological substrate. To use a word I tend to rely upon excessively, this is a process of successive hystericizations, so that a judgmentalism already universally demonstrated in our species (as ‘altrustic punishment’, for e.g.) is carried to ever more unrestrained forms of expression — one might say it is progressively ‘liberated’.

So I do think that Christianity is the world’s most sanctimonious religion, Protestantism is the most sanctimonious species of Christianity, Puritans are abnormally sanctimonious Protestants, and Progressives are — even by the standards to be expected of Neo-Puritans — best characterized as an adventure into the psychotic outer-reaches of uninhibited sanctimony.”

I disagree only slightly with this hierarchy of sanctimony. Islam, when practiced in the Qur’anic observation mode, is hands-down the most sanctimonious, and it is on a par with Progressivism. Nonetheless, Progressivism is a religion of messiahs, the Victimhood Class, and the Oppressor Class, with the sanctimony of the messiahs unmatched in its blind intensity by any Christian segment. Here's my analysis for comparison:

Christians have a messiah; they are sinners, not messiahs.

Muslims wait for a messiah; they act as proxy messiahs, to protect the putative honor of their deity.

Progressives claim they are messiahs; they will produce heaven on Earth, when the Oppressor Class is eradicated.

Progressives are natural Atheists, claiming secular godhood for themselves as the messianic class. These Atheists have the following principles, stated or unstated:

I am the messiah I have been waiting for.

I am the determiner of morality; thus I dictate morality, and I punish the immoral.

I have inherited the Will To Power; I will over power the heretics.

As messiah I have the endowed power, both moral and physical, to dictate the lives and thoughts of the herd.

Salvation is accomplished through submission to the messiah class.

Progressive Messiahism adopts the methods of Christianity without Christ or Christian principles. It applies the distillate of Marxist Three Class ideology as the model for progress toward an Earthly Utopia, unified in mindless obedience and submission.

Hence, for Atheist, Leftist, Progressive Messiahs, salvation is the exact equivalent of the lobotomy of the intellect for purposes of attaining maximal self-righteous sanctimony.

Mencius Moldbug connects modern Progressives to Christian Calvinism, without the deity part of course, but with the severity of Calvinism:

Neo-Calvinism, Crypto-Christianity, and Scientific Socialism

“The "ultracalvinist hypothesis" is the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called "progressive," "multiculturalist," "universalist," "liberal," "politically correct," etc, is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity.

Specifically, ultracalvinism (which I have also described here and here) is the primary surviving descendant of the American mainline Protestant tradition, which has been the dominant belief system of the United States since its founding. It should be no surprise that it continues in this role, or that since the US's victory in the last planetary war it has spread worldwide.

Ultracalvinism is an ecumenical syncretism of the mainline, not traceable to any one sectarian label. But its historical roots are easy to track with the tag Unitarian. The meaning of this word has mutated considerably in the last 200 years, but at any point since the 1830s it is found attached to the most prestigious people and ideas in the US, and since 1945 in the world.

The trouble with "Unitarian" as a label is that (a) it exhibits this evolutionary blurring, and (b) it at least nominally refers to a specific metaphysical belief (anti-Trinitarianism). So I took the liberty of coining "ultracalvinist."

The "calvinist" half of this word refers to the historical chain of descent from John Calvin and his religious dictatorship in Geneva, passing through the English Puritans to the New England Unitarians, abolitionists and Transcendentalists, Progressives and Prohibitionists, super-protestants, hippies and secular theologians, and down to our own dear progressive multiculturalists.

The "ultra" half refers to my perception that, at least compared to other Christian sects, the beliefs of this faith are relatively aggressive and unusual.

In fact, they are so unusual that most people don't see ultracalvinism as Christian at all. For example, on the theological side, ultracalvinism is best known as Unitarian Universalism. (It's an interesting exercise to try to find any conflicts between UUism and "political correctness.") Ultracalvinists are perfectly free to be atheists, or believe in any God or gods - as long as they don't adhere to any revealed tradition, which would make them "fundamentalists." In general, ultracalvinists oppose revelation and consider their beliefs to be pure products of reason. And perhaps they are right in this - but I feel the claim should at least be investigated.

I am not a theist, so I don't care much for theology. Paranormal beliefs are not beliefs about the real world, and cannot directly motivate real-world action. As a result, they are usually of no adaptive significance, tend to mutate frequently, and are a dangerous basis for classification.

And when we look at the real-world beliefs of ultracalvinists, we see that ultracalvinism is anything but content-free. By my count, the ultracalvinist creed has four main points:

First, ultracalvinists believe in the universal brotherhood of man. As an Ideal (an undefined universal) this might be called Equality. ("All men and women are born equal.") If we wanted to attach an "ism" to this, we could call it fraternalism.

Second, ultracalvinists believe in the futility of violence. The corresponding ideal is of course Peace. ("Violence only causes more violence.") This is well-known as pacifism.

Third, ultracalvinists believe in the fair distribution of goods. The ideal is Social Justice, which is a fine name as long as we remember that it has nothing to do with justice in the dictionary sense of the word, that is, the accurate application of the law. ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.") To avoid hot-button words, we will ride on a name and call this belief Rawlsianism.

Fourth, ultracalvinists believe in the managed society. The ideal is Community, and a community by definition is led by benevolent experts, or public servants. ("Public servants should be professional and socially responsible.") After their counterparts east of the Himalaya, we can call this belief mandarism.

Now, where do these beliefs come from? What is their origin and etiology? Why do so many of us in 2007 believe in these particular concepts? Were they invented in 1967? Or 1907? Or 1607? Or what?”

There is little doubt that we are dealing with ultra-religious, moralizing, pseudo-intellectual, self-endowed messianic totalitarians, for whom eliminationism is a moral expectation as the drive to heaven on Earth/Utopia is mobilized under the guise of empathy, which is a barely recognizable fictional concept that is not expressed in any Progressive, intolerant, totalitarian.

The concept of the Progressive "Cathedral" is another summary:

The Cathedral in a nutshell

1. The Cathedral (aka the Clerisy, the Megaphone) is basically the Western world’s intellectual fashion industry. It consists of almost all of the respectable or even semi-respectable parts of the news media, the entertainment industry, and the softer social science and humanities parts of the education industry.

2.Basic economic theory predicts that these industries should be diverse in their approaches to politically sensitive topics. Unlike the field of particle physics, political fashions are not significantly limited by reproducible scientific experiments. The market should be fragmented, and the various firms should specialize in appealing to different segments of the market.

3.But this does not seem to be the case. Instead, the Cathedral seems much more homogeneous in its coverage of politically sensitive topics than it is in coverage of food, art, sports, religion, etc.

4. The mechanism for this homogenization is not obvious. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Cathedral has no pope (although I read recently that Warren Buffet owns 71 newspapers, and the New York Times is owned in part by Carlos Slim, whose vast fortune has a lot to do with his special relationship with the Mexican government). One factor is that the credibility of a set of information sources depends on their being able to agree on a story (coordination games, the peloton effect, the parliament of clocks). Another factor is self-dealing: people with high verbal skills tend to support a system of government that is controlled by people with high verbal skills, and once they control it, they tend to want it to be unlimited in scope. Another factor is self-selection: once an institution becomes dominated by members of a political movement, it tends to become unpleasant and career-limiting for anyone else to work there. Another factor is that the easiest way to write a newspaper story is to copy it from a politician’s press handout. To a considerable extent, these institutions are deliberately manipulated by politicians (broadcast licensing, educational and research funding, journalistic access, selective leaking of secrets, etc., aka Gleichschaltung; in many cases, journalists are literally married to political operatives or are involved in “revolving door” relationships with the political institutions they write about, such as Jeff Immelt of GE, MSNBC and the Obama administration). But the two biggest factors are probably that (1) intellectuals are seduced by political power (the Boromir effect), and (2) these institutions are quasi-religious, and have taken on the peculiar characteristics of the dominant quasi-religion of the day.

5. Three things make an intellectual movement quasi-religious: (1) the outputs that they produce are credence goods, (2) they provide a framework for competition for social status, and (3) this basis is insecure. The fact that credence goods are involved means that conflict about them will tend to be irrational. The fact that social status is involved, and that the basis for social status is insecure, means that this conflict will be relatively vicious, and will carry a strong odor of a witch hunt.

6. The Cathedral is powerful partly because its relative homogeneity allows it to serve as a gatekeeper of politically relevant mass-market information and interpretation. But its real power comes from control of what ideas are associated with high status. Everyone thinks, “I’m my own man. I think for myself.” But unconsciously, people tend to copy the opinions of people who are one step above them on the social ladder. This was explained in the Cerulean Top scene in The Devil Wears Prada.

They're Starting to Notice the Messiahs

The Left Is Transforming into a Religion, Maybe a Bit Too Literally
Imagine there's no heaven, only politics.

"One of the more prescient essays in recent years is Jody Bottum's "The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas," which I'm proud to say was published in THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The essay posits that religious ideas are transforming politics as we know it, only instead of the hand-wringing about the Moral Majority or the George W. Bush administration's supposed attempts to impose theocracy, it's the left that is, ahem, "culturally appropriating" religious ideas to suit their own attempts to seize power.

Take ethnicity, which has become a matter of original sin. Unlike the Judeo-Christian belief, however, this sin does not apply to all of humanity. "So profound is the sin, in fact, that not even its proponents escape. The more they are aware of white privilege, the more they see it everywhere, even in themselves," writes Bottum. He quotes an essay of University of Texas professor Robert Jensen, who wrote: "There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased."

Even Andrew Sullivan recently reached this conclusion, when he recently examined "intersectionality," the left-wing buzzword du jour, which he accurately describes as "neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power." Sullivan further observes that intersectionality "is operating, in Orwell's words, as a 'smelly little orthodoxy,' and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., 'check your privilege,' and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay."

This idea of identity-as-sin works well as a metaphor. But every once in a while, a story comes along where the metaphor becomes all too literal:

The University of Regina is asking its male students to own up to their toxic masculinity, and they're setting up a confessional booth—similar to those in Catholic churches—where guys can confess their sins of "hypermasculinity."

The program is part of the university's "Man Up Against Violence" program, which encourages guys on campus to take control of their masculine nature and speak out against sexual harassment.

But like most good efforts begun by social justice warriors, the Man Up Against Violence program ultimately takes a bizarre turn. In this case, they're asking the men on campus to start the program by laying bare all of their "sins" against the women of the community.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the left embraced formal sacraments such as confession. Only there's one key aspect of America's religious tradition the left will never embrace: I guarantee no man will walk out of this campus confession booth having been forgiven of the sin of "hypermasculinity."

Certainly, the religious right has had its excesses. But if you think that's bad, just imagine the consequences of a political system dominated by a religious left that doesn't believe in redemption."

Confluence

Go HERE FOR THE ENTIRE TEXT.

That appears to be changing. Progressivism, the civic religion of the North, has degraded into a lunatic cult and marginalized itself. The leaders still control the high ground, but they are under assault. Buckley conservatism, which has served as the ideological enforcers for the Left, is imploding. These people may not be packing their bags, preparing for exile, but the 2016 election map makes clear that the old Yankee hegemony is coming to an end. The sensibilities of the rest of the country will have to be included in the political culture.

Now, it is possible that Progressivism is on its death bed. Unlike Europe, the American Left has never been about economic equality. It was always about spiritual equality. The radicals on the Continent were always obsessed with busting up the class structure. The radicals in American have always been focused on saving the immortal soul of the nation. Economic equality was never anything more than a a political tool for the reformers to use as a way to get control of the culture in order to impose their moral vision on the nation.

In order for this to work, the Left has always needed victims and oppressors, saints and sinners. In the 20th century, they could champion black civil rights and women’s issues. Then it was onto gays and now foreigners. The trouble is, they are running out of victims to champion. Black guys getting pushed around by rednecks at the polling booth make for sympathetic victims. Mentally unstable men in sundresses wanting access to the girl’s toilet are not good victims. They are ridiculous and championing them makes the champions look ridiculous.

There’s also a noticeable lack of villains. Donald Trump is supposed to be the 12th invisible Hitler, returning to impose a dictatorship on America. The trouble is, Trump sounds like a Jewish guy from Queens and his kids converted to Judaism when they got married. So far, his most enthusiastic supporter among world leaders is the Prime Minister of Israel. They ain’t making Hitlers like they used to. This comes after the nation twice elected a black guy president. The unhinged hatred of white people that has carried the Left for generations has descended into madness.

Something else that is working against the Yankee hegemony is the collapse of the blank slate. Progressivism rests on the assertion that people come into the world as an amorphous blob that can be shaped and trained to be anything. That means a just society has virtuous people at the top to make sure the citizens are properly shaped and trained. This imperative has always been the source of authority for the American Left and now it is unraveling as science unlocks the human genome.

It is impossible to overestimate the impact of genetics on moral philosophy as everything about Western culture depends on free will. Democracy assumes that all people are equally capable of participating in the civic life of a people. While most people have always sensed that this is not true, scientific proof that it is not true changes everything. You cannot have egalitarianism and multiculturalism without assuming humans come into the world as a blank slate. If people are not endlessly malleable, there’s no point in trying to mold them.

Long term trends like these do not change overnight so this great confluence of events may play out over generations. It could turn out that the natural order is for the North to dominate the political life of the nation. Genetics could find the “free will” gene and validate everything Progressives have claimed for generations. It is impossible to know, but it is not the way things are heading. Right now it feels like three great trends in American cultural life are coming to a conclusion at roughly the same point.

The Neo-Puritans

'Neo-Puritans' want to punish you for 'sin'
'If you disagree with one, you're not just wrong, you're deserving of punishment'

For a term that might be useful in replacing "SJW" with a more descriptive and accurate representation, that of pseudo-religious totalitarianism, Jack Cashill uses the term Neo-Puritans to describe the moralizing, condemning holy cult of the Left. By making their evanescent progressive morals into pseudo laws, they become ever more powerful by doing nothing except make pseudo-moral condemnations, in high pitched screams of self-righteous faux-moral indignation.

Seven Deadly Sins have been isolated:

"Cashill recently wrote a book, “Scarlet Letters: The Ever-Increasing Intolerance of the Cult of Liberalism Exposed,” in which he identified the seven intolerable sins against the progressive “neo-Puritan” worldview: racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and climate-change denialism.

This list is incomplete having left out anti-eugenics/abortion, anti-theism, and anti-embryonic stem cells, for a perfect ten sins.

"Now the neo-Puritan elect, and this is the odd thing about them … they have less interest in celebrating their own values than they do in condemning those people who resist the celebration," Cashill said. "They take joy in that. For them it's almost as good as eating organic or occupying something."

That's because it really IS a religious war, and defeat is the single objective; a tactical success is to be iconized as a religious, joyful sanctification.

One example he cited was that of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian bakers in Oregon who declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Rather than simply finding another baker willing to bake them a cake, the lesbian couple filed a complaint, and an Oregon commissioner eventually ordered the Kleins to pay the couple $135,000 for emotional damages. He even slapped a gag order on them. But that was after intense public pressure from "gay marriage" supporters forced the Kleins to close their bakery.

The Kleins even tried to set up a GoFundMe page to help pay their fine, but the website shut it down, saying it would no longer allow campaigns in defense of "discriminatory acts."

Cashill noted sadly that Aaron Klein drives a garbage truck now that the neo-Puritans have destroyed his bakery. He said the Kleins' case exemplifies the neo-Puritan model.

"It's just not enough to share your offense," he said. "You've got to enlist the state in your cause. This is where it begins to really approach the Puritan model, but the Puritans were a picture of mercy and rationality compared to what's going on right now."

The author pointed out Hester Prynne, the protagonist in Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter," at least knew she had committed the sin of adultery. She knew why she was being punished. But he said it's hard for modern people to know when they've offended the neo-Puritans. In fact, it's too easy to offend them.

Case in point: former NFL quarterback Brett Favre received criticism from the Left for not clapping long enough or enthusiastically enough as the transgender Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner approached the stage to receive the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPYs this year. Cashill said Favre was a recipient of the newest scarlet letter – "T" for "transphobia."

He said the fairly recent invention of this new sin shows progressive neo-Puritans have no fixed ideology like the liberals of old."

The number of new Puritanical "sins" will increase over time. The Puritanical Class mainly worships itself with an unmatched narcissism, and whatever itself decides is immoral, stands as immoral. That makes them much worse, much more destructive of entire institutions, much more hateful than the original Puritans. And much more destructive of actual morality. That's because the pseudo-morals of the neo-Puritans cannot coincide with traditional morals. That would render their voices to be commonplace, unheard, without notoriety and publicity.

Victimhood as Reverse Therapy...

...reinforcing or even creating mental disorder:

Glenn Reynolds, at Instapundit:
"Far worse is another changing cultural value, in which victims reflexively become not just replacements for heroes but “a new kind of aristocracy,” as Jonah Goldberg writes in his latest G-File:
(Whatever you think of Ahmed Mohamed and his clock, it is now obvious that the best thing that ever happened to him was getting wrongfully arrested. If he’d brought in a baking-soda volcano, or had been a blond kid named Smith, he would not be heading to the White House or getting the royal treatment from Facebook and Google).
The point is we live in an age where victimhood is the new currency, victims a new kind of aristocracy, and pity a cardinal virtue. Conservatives — who are by no means separate from, or immune to, this cultural shift — have at least been lamenting it for a very long time. What is interesting is that academia is finally catching up. Jonathan Haidt:

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in just the past few years. In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, that Greg Lukianoff and I wrote about in The Coddling of the American Mind.

And as Ace recently noted, “Compare to Lukianoff’s and Haidt’s piece in the Atlantic suggesting that ‘microagression culture’ is an insidious, harmful form of cognitive therapy — as positive cognitive therapy would desensitize a hysteric so that the hysteric could behave normally, insidious cognitive therapy supersensitizes normal people into acting like hysterics…Lukianoff describes how he came to have this insight. He’d fallen prey to depression, and went through cognitive therapy to teach his brain to stop ‘catastrophizing’ and to unlearn other pernicious mental habits. It began to dawn on him that the Social Justice Warrior claque was using cognitive therapy to go the other direction, transforming the mentally well into the mentally unwell.”
This doesn’t bode well for the future of western civilization. (Or the lack thereof.)

RELATED: Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves: “So I turned to eBay, searching for vintage alarm clocks. It only took a minute to locate Ahmed’s clock. See this eBay listing, up at the time of this writing. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidiary. Catalog number 63 756.”

[emphasis added]

Finally. Catching On to the AtheoLeftist Victimhood Scam

Today’s College Campuses, Where the Will to Power Derives from Victimhood

"Back in April, during one of their GLoP podcasts on Ricochet.com, Jonah Goldberg, Rob Long and John Podhoretz explored the fables of the Rolling Stone rape article, Columbia’s Mattress Girl, and the general tendency of college campuses to be hotbeds of false accusations of rape, racism, and other fever swamp delusions:

PODHORETZ: But it doesn’t have to be everybody; that’s partially, I think Jonah’s point. It can be two people, it can be three people, on a campus of 4,000 or 25,000, or 50,000, who can turn the place upside-down. Somebody paints a swastika on his own door, and the entire place revolved around this fact for an entire week. It is very empowering of dangerously deluded or fallacious behavior.

GOLDBERG: We’re in a weird Nietzschian transition moment where victimhood is the way you assert your will to power.

I found that to be an intriguing concept, given that Nietzsche lit the fuse for so much of the bloodshed of the 20th century in Europe. On this side of the pond, he also empowered much of the “Progressive” and anti-American movement of the first half of the 20th century. On the left, this included Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno of the infamous Frankfurt School, transplanted to America after a rival form of Nietzsche-worshipping socialism won the day in post-Weimar Germany. And (more or less) on the right, famed journalist H.L. Mencken, who was the first to translate Nietzsche in English in 1907 and whose later polemics are chockablock full of Nietzsche-inspired attacks on traditional American culture, democracy and religion. (Including, in a much more benign form Ayn Rand — whatever her later protestations, Objectivism shares a lot in common with Nietzsche’s Will to Power. And eventually Stanley Kubrick; it’s no coincidence that 2001: A Space Odyssey’s central leitmotif is Richard Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra.)

Partially as a result of Nietzsche’s influence, think of the polar opposites that the American student is taught throughout his young life: with all of the self-esteem and “you can change the world!” rhetoric pumped into his psyche since kindergarten, by the time he gets into college, today’s student is caught between believing on the one hand, he’s the second coming of the Nietzschian Superman (no relation to famed journalist Clark Kent). And on the other, with all of the left’s obsessions with the notion that everyone is a victim, he’s concurrently Nietzsche’s Last Man, “who makes everything small” — micro, you might say, as in an obsession with “micro-aggressions.”"

But it is not just "on-campus", it is the entirety of the programs of the Left, which views everything human through the prismatic lens of Class - Victims, Oppressors, and themselves as the Messiah Class.

Arm Chair Messiahs

The White-Savior Industrial Complex

And there's this:

The Soft Bigotry of Kony 2012

"The viral video campaign reinforces a dangerous, centuries-old idea that Africans are helpless and that idealistic Westerners must save them."

John C. Wright, on the Ideology of Hate

The Marxist Three Class System is based on pure bigotry.

"The word for when a person erects in his mind a false image of a group of people, and sees them only as that image, that false stereotype, and moreover it is a despicable stereotype, one that robs them not just of dignity, but of their very humanity… that word is bigot"

The Left claims many things which it does not have, including nuance. Their Class War involves radical division of humans into one of their three classifications - nuance be damned. Should you object, then you are an Oppressor Class individual, and subject to eliminationist rhetoric (so far). The classification process is easy: either you are one of them or you are despicable, without value to humanity and disposable. And you are to be despised with the fullness of their self-righteous, pompous moral hatred. And punished in whatever manner they can muster.

"They do not say what they are, because, if you listen to them, they say that words mean nothing, that truth is relative, that all civilizations are no better than savagery, that no religion is better than another, and that anything which is not illegal is allowed. So of course they say they are perfect angels: because the word has no meaning to them, no words have meaning, and telling the truth is not correct. Only political correctness is correct.

Now they have gone fullbore barking moonbat mouthfoaming evil. The last traces of decency were scraped away with an exacto knife the day the Feminists publicly defended Bill Clinton abusing an underling, and no one on the Left rebuked them: and that was decades ago. Now they defend and make common cause with the Jihadists, who use power tools to drill holes in the legs or skulls of small children whose parents they wish to impress.

You see, it does not matter if the Jihadists act like the mass murderer from the movie SAW combined with Freddy Kruger combined with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Che. Che is a hero of theirs. Mao is a darling of theirs."

Because they despise everything not of themselves, they automatically reject the culture which made them free enough to try to kill freedom. They despise freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of economics, freedom in politics, but only those freedoms for The Other. And Othering is what they do, every day, every thought is devoted to Othering.

"They would rather die at the hands of a mad bomber than be accused of being like you. They think you are a racist, a bigot, a theocrat. They hate you more than they hate the Devil. The devil they salute as a rebel and freethinkers. To him they dedicate books.

Leftism is hatred. Everything that is normal, sane, healthy, holy, rational, or good, they hate. They hate the death penalty for murderers and love suicide and euthanasia. They have daydreams about the human race being wiped off the globe, in order to preserve the Guatemalan water snake or the Puritan stink bug. They hate marriage and love sodomy. They hate wealth and success. They hate population; they hate people. They are fearless when it comes to Jihad and fearful when it comes to the weather. They love abortion most of all: nothing gives a Leftist hearts in his eyes faster than contemplating a score or a hundred dismembered dead babies piled up in a heap outside an abortion mill, and denied a Christian burial.

They cannot even stand each other any longer. The Left is devouring itself: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/01/31/the-left-devours-itself/"

Read both articles...

Quote of the Day

"Again, it all comes back to power. The Progressives borrowed this neat trick from Napoleon and Marx (which sounds like a fine haberdashery). They unilaterally declared all competing ideologies to be closed-mindedly “ideological” while claiming for themselves an open-minded pragmatism. So liberalism doesn’t have to defend itself as an ideology while it can accuse all of its competing ideologies of being cult-like and other-worldly. We hear this in Obama all of the time. His opponents are “ideologues” who put their “ideology” ahead of the American people, while he is merely a “problem-solver” who only wants to do “what works.” I’m sure he believes it.

Which points to one of the big problems with liberalism; its staggering lack of self-awareness. Liberals simply take it as a given that they are open-minded, morally superior free thinkers. At least conservatives acknowledge our dogma. Liberals have become so dogmatic they can’t even see theirs."
Jonah Goldberg

The underlying premise here is that if the Left "unilaterally declares" a principle to be true, then it is no longer questionable by themselves or anyone else: it has become a Leftist First Principle, and denial is seen as both irrational and evil. This is premised further on the Messiahship of the Left - the immutable self-perfection attained through self-elevation above all other existing and potential intellects and moral authorities. They are supreme in all ways; they are engaged in forcing you to acknowledge that. Because you are irrational and evil it is the Leftist's holy task to correct your mind, or silence your mouth.

The Messiahs' War On Humans, In Scientific American

Even if there is no discernable Victimhood Class for a particular Messianic war, the self-righteous Messiahs still war on their designated Oppressor Class. A major case in point is identified in Scientific American, where the cost to the real-life victims of the Messiahs is quantified in "life-years":

"Their study, published in the journal Environment and Development Economics, estimates that the delayed application of Golden Rice in India alone has cost 1,424,000 life years since 2002. That odd sounding metric – not just lives but ‘life years’ – accounts not only for those who died, but also for the blindness and other health disabilities that Vitamin A deficiency causes. The majority of those who went blind or died because they did not have access to Golden Rice were children."

Golden rice is a GMO which merely added vitamin A to rice. The opposition is opposed to any GMO, in the same sense that it is opposed to DDT: just because of the Precautionary Principle, which is the Luddite thesis that technology could, possibly harm someone; so don't do it, despite no evidence to support that position. So despite the obvious benefits to malnourished peoples, they are protected from being nourished.

The Messiah Luddites should be shamed by the bright light of numerical deaths and suffering that they have aided and abetted. But they cannot be shamed, because their morals do not include shame. They are always more moral than any moral facts to the contrary. That is the definition of evil.

"The opponents of Golden Rice who have caused this harm should be held accountable.

That includes Greenpeace, which in its values statement promises, “we are committed to nonviolence.” Only their non-violent opposition to Golden Rice contributes directly to real human death and suffering. It includes the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, which claims the credibility of scientific expertise, and then denies or distorts scientific evidence in order to oppose GMOs. It includes the U.S. Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club and several environmental groups who deny and distort the scientific evidence on GM foods every bit as much as they complain the deniers of climate change science do. It includes the Non-GMO Project, started by natural food retailers who oppose a technology that just happens to threaten their profits."

The perversion of "risk" for the benefit of a set of egos:

"The whole GMO issue is really just one example of a far more profound threat to your health and mine. The perception of risk is inescapably subjective, a matter of not just the facts, but how we feel about those facts. As pioneering risk perception psychologist Paul Slovic has said, “risk is a feeling.” So societal arguments over risk issues like Golden Rice and GMOs, or guns or climate change or vaccines, are not mostly about the evidence, though we wield the facts as our weapons. They are mostly about how we feel, and our values, and which group’s values win, not what will objectively do the most people the most good. That’s a dumb and dangerous way to make public risk management decisions.

And yet: the author goes wildly off message as he leaves technology and veers straight into Leftist swamp of dogma and cant:

"When advocates get so passionate in the fight for their values that they potentially impose harm on others, it puts us all at risk, and we have the right to call attention to those potential harms and hold those advocates accountable. And this is much broader than just GMOs:

-Delay on dealing with climate change exposes us all to much greater risk. We should hold responsible those whose ideology-driven denial of climate change is responsible for some of that risk.

-Resistance to anything to make it harder for bad guys to get guns puts us all at risk. Society should hold responsible the paranoid arch-conservatism that has created resistance to any prudent gun control and contributed to that risk.

-Parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids put others in their communities at risk. They certainly should be held accountable for this, and in some places, that’s beginning. Several states are trying to pass laws making it harder for parents to opt out of vaccinating their kids."

There are significant differences between these issues and the GMO food issues at the beginning of the article. Here the author flips to the other side, becoming the advocate of the Precautionary Principle himself. There are, within each of these three non-GMO situations, significant contrary facts to consider, facts which the author now suddenly presumes not to exist. So he commits the EXACT error which he started out to condemn: denial of rights (to nutrition) by asserting a "risk" principle which is not provable and is arguable by contrary fact, and further, to assume that the solution (denial of rights) is better than personal choice.

What started as an objective article on nutrition turned out to be a Trojan Horse type vehicle for Leftist suppression.

Does Scientific American have no editors? Or is it so AtheoLeftist that it needs no editing for dogma? As always, the tautologically-moral cannot be shamed.

NYT Defends Punishment of Thought Crimes, and In Return Is Used To Defend Actual Punishment (Odd But True)

The "editorial board" of the NYT went out of its way to defend the firing of the Atlanta Fire Chief for his religious views. No, he is not Islamic, that would be an offense to Islam. He is Christian. His offense: he wrote a book in which he criticized homosexuality.

God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department

"Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff.

Mr. Cochran, a veteran firefighter, is also a deeply religious man, and he was eager to bring his Christian faith into the daily functioning of his department — or, as he put it in a book he authored in 2013, to “cultivate its culture to the glory of God.”

But, as the book revealed, his religious beliefs also include virulent anti-gay views. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits."

Other sources report that Cochran did have permission from the mayor's office to distribute the book. But that wasn't what got him fired. It was his opinion which got him fired. It was deemed a thought crime. Given that there is no record of discrimination by which to punish Cochran, the thought crime aspect is very clear.

Here's the money quote:

"It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard."

Yes. Constitutional standards no longer apply to Victimhood Classes. There are different standards for them, and those standards are dictated by the self-anointed elites of the Messiah Class.

The Mayor has doubled down, while forked-tonguing the issue:

Mayor: Fire chief not axed for writing anti-gay book

"Here is the letter:
Dear Supporters,

Last week, I made the decision to terminate our Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran. It was a decision that was not made lightly because I appreciated Chief Cochran's service to the City of Atlanta. While you may have read articles that asserted the issue at hand was Chief Cochran's religious beliefs, I can assure you that those comments could not be further from the truth.

The truth is that I am a man of deep faith myself, and we are a city of laws. Chief Cochran's book, "Who Told You You Were Naked," was published in violation of the city's Standards of Conduct, which required prior approval from the Board of Ethics. I believe his actions, decisions, and lack of judgment undermined his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse workforce. Every single City of Atlanta employee deserves the certainty that he or she is a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide our employment decisions. His actions and his statements during the investigation and his suspension eroded my confidence in his ability to serve as a member of my senior leadership team.

Please take a moment to read this editorial that was published in today's New York Times.

Thank you for all of your kind offers of support. Please take a moment to remind everyone you know that the City of Atlanta is a city too busy to hate.

Sincerely,

Mayor Kasim Reed"

The fork in the mayor's tongue might get a lawsuit going, should Cochran care to fight back. The mayor claims first that it was not Cochran's beliefs, it was his failure to get permission that got him fired. Then with his other tongue he says that it was Cochran's opinions (Christian) which drove the decision, and with his third tongue claimed that the opinion of the editorial board of the NYT served as justification, as if the NYT were some legal/moral authority.

It's possible that Cochran is toast. Sexual deviants are fully protected Victimhood Class perpetual victims. And even though Cochran is black, that is cancelled out by his status as an Oppressor Class thought criminal.

Here's a thought experiment: What if Cochran were actually a Muslim, and expressed the exact same opinions? Would the mayor "offend" the Imams and Mullahs by firing him? There is no class more favored by the Messiahs than Muslims; the moral weighting would tend to tip away from sexual deviancy and toward Islam, I suspect. But the point is that moral weighting is what is going on at the mayor's office and at the NYT, and they are very comfortable in their moral authority to condemn and punish their enemies, completely outside any lawful, legal process. They ARE the Messiahs. They will make the moral rules and decisions.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

Let's Just Call It 'The Muslim Question'

"In our time the revolutionary response and the “little darling” response to the Social Question have merged into what I call the “activism” culture. Our educated ruling class teaches that there are three kinds of people: the oppressors, the oppressed and the champions of the oppressed. The only ethical choice is to march and peacefully protest on behalf of the oppressed and fight the oppressors.

Life is pretty black and white to these champions of the oppressed. Any group newly immigrating to the Western city is automatically awarded victim status and anyone that questions the “little darling” politics of the activists is an “-ist” -- racist, sexist – or a “-phobe” -- homophobe, Islamophobe.

Up to now, all this activism has been great fun for the ruling class and highly remunerative for its bribed apologists because the post-WWII group of immigrants played their victim parts to perfection. They allowed the liberal ruling class to speak for them, and marched and protested more or less as directed. They never really posed an existential threat to the ordinary assimilated middle class, not enough that ordinary people might break with the ruling class and turn to “extreme nationalists” for leadership.

But now we are face to face with the Muslim Question, the question of the millions of Muslims that have immigrated to the West in the past generation and that have remained peculiarly separate from the Western culture, partly by reason of the cultural strength of Islam and partly from the multiculturalist ruling class that encourages their “little darlings” in self-segregation."

Read it all...

The Cravens

An insight from Vox's place: SJW's are actually craven. The term is more than apt; it is a masterful portrait.

The Marxist/Messiah/SJW cannot be a successful human without needing external help in the form of class war: Victims and Oppressors. This individual cowers in the face of individuality and the need to produce something, anything, to provide for him/herself and thus produce meaning for his/her life. Without Messiahship, the Marxist has no meaning and the fear of a meaningless existence virtually guarantees the need to self-anoint (to use Sowell's term) into elitist status. It is fear of being found meaningless, a craven source of purpose, which is the Marxist driver.

The designated Victimhood Group denizens likewise fear either the work or the potential for failure of trying to compete on a level field. They are blame-placers who cravenly blame their failure to thrive onto the Other, and they accept the scraps which the Messiahs offer, rather than summon the boldness to face competition which is required to succeed, even on a field that is purposefully tilted to their benefit.

The two craven types complement each other in their co-dependent and craven blaming of the Other, the designated Oppressor Class.

The cowardliness of these two classes is most obvious in the microaggression tactic, where invisible offenses by the Oppressor Class are invented, along with the hyperfragility of the mental states of the "traumatized" classes. Only the craven could be actually traumatized by words, skin tones, gender, and other fabricated offenses.

Being craven by nature, these deviants will be easy to defeat... IFF the Other - us - siezes the opportunity to assert our courage in the face of craven accusations of racism, sexism, tribalism, homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, and whatever other expletives the cravens can muster as their weapons. Such weaponry might appear awesome to those who fear such words of false morality. But they are as vacant of threat as they are vacuous of truth.

I think that the Marxist/Messiah/SJWs would crumble immediately if we figure out how to engage them directly. Because: craven=spineless.

A Lesson in Messiah Tactics

What would we expect this government to do, when their Victimhood Class complains about the militarization of police?

Why of course; the government would step up its shipments of military hardware to police forces around the nation.

Racism is absolutely necessary for the Leftist Messiah capture of of the Black Victimhood Class. Therefore, racism is not to be minimized or assuaged in any manner, it is to be incited and inflamed at every opportunity (never waste a crisis!) Now that cops fear for their lives while merely sitting in their cop cars, providing them with the military gear will be appreciated... but only by the cops; the black racists will be further enraged and more deeply entrenched in their Leftist Plantation of Black Victimhood. Their victimhood will be maintained. And imagine the rage if one of those brand new fully auto riot rifles in the hands of a white cop goes off and kills a black. Regardless of the facts of the situation, all possible hell will break loose, again.

It's too soon to tell whether this is the civil chaos for which FEMA and other feds have been preparing, with their encampments of empty housing trailers, their massive arms and ammo purchases. Every federal agency now has its own army; there must be reasoning behind it.

This move be the feds can only be seen as an exacerbation of civil unrest.

"The federal government shipped nearly 4,000 more assault rifles to local law enforcement agencies in the three months following the Ferguson riots, marking a huge surge in the amount of lethal firearms being doled out to police and sheriff’s offices.

The Ferguson riots drew attention and criticism to the massive firepower state and local police are now able to bring to bear on their citizens, and earned scrutiny for the Pentagon project, known as the 1033 program, that helps arm many of those agencies by making surplus military equipment available to them."

In an age of an oppressor Leftist government and an imperial president/community organizer/agitator-in-chief, it seems that anything whatsoever is possible these days. Even probable.

Imagining Myself As A Black Person

Michael Eric Dyson: We Have to ‘Retrain’ Americans on Race in Schools
"White souls" can be trained in a different way.

"Dyson added that he’s afraid it will not become a problem significant enough for Americans to take seriously “until something happens in the broader white America.”

“And what I mean here is that when this pain begins to be shared in the broader community, when young people say, for instance, who have meth labs on college campuses that are granted implicit immunity end up being shot by the police, you can darn bet right then that this is going to be a problem,” said Dyson.

“We have to speak out and to have the masses of American people to imagine themselves as black people as much as they can to generate empathy to say they must speak up and they must demand changes in their own communities to go along with what’s happening,” Dyson said."

If I were black, would I sit at home, smoke dope, collect welfare, and at night congregate on the streets with drug dealers? How do I re-imagine myself being reduced to that type of blackness?

The primary difference between me and the blacks of the Leftist racial plantations is not my skin tone; it is the mindset. In order for me to re-invent myself as a black, at least the ghetto black which is the black at issue here, I would have to completely invert my entire worldview, especially my concept of presenting personal value in order to obtain employment; diligence in employment in order to keep it; taking opportunities when the windows open, especially educational opportunities which increase my value as a citizen.

I would have to accept the notion that whites are evil racists. That concept is essential to my perpetuation in cherished Victimhood, and it is victimhood which gives meaning to my perpetuation in focused hatred. Without my hatred of evil whites who are all racists, my leaders have nothing to say to us.

So I would have to learn to wallow in my victimhood under the perceived oppression which black leaders say I must. That is what it means to be “black”, at least black enough. Certainly not the type of black who excels in white racist society, those Uncle Tom ex-blacks who shed their hatred and accept the work ethics and educational mind-twisting of schooling in, say, the proper use of the English language, and the history of democracy vs autocracy, and the necessity of logic, math, and science for well-rounded citizenship. Those people have had their blackness revoked. I needn’t be an ex-black.

No, in order to imagine myself as black I cannot have my blackness revoked; I must adopt the mental attitudes of ghetto blackness, and reject all character traits of whites.

But in order to do that, I would have to reject all rational thinking, accept the Black Victimhood narrative as objective truth, even while no longer comprehending the concept of “objective truth”. I would have to forget the proper use of the English Language; the history of democracy; all logic, math and science and anything else that is not related to ghetto living, drugs, sex, gunfire and hatred of whites.

That is truly difficult to accomplish. And what is the value of it if I could accomplish it? What would I understand that I don’t already?

I do understand that they live and barely survive in an alien culture. I do understand that that alien culture is both protected and implemented by taxpayers via the Welfare Statists who need in return the undocumented votes of those in that alien culture. I do understand that the apparent “rules” for living in that alien culture are far different from the written laws that the cops want to enforce. So I understand that it is considered an “injustice” for whites (racists all of them) to place their laws on that alien culture.

I further understand that that alien culture wishes “all cops dead”, and that the alien culture is now the tail wagging the white leftist dog, causing white leftists to support the black racists in their fight against white laws and judicial process.

There are two rational solutions possible here, and no more since the middle road has been destroyed, as the alien culture takes the bit in its teeth. (Like Dyson, above, who insists that whites are all racists but possibly retrainable).

First is the solution of the blacks acculturating into responsible citizenship in the mainstream culture. A great many have done so with success. But the Leftist drive to maintain the ghetto plantations would have to be removed as the disincentive. That is virtually impossible without severe disruptions.

Second is to find a place for the alien culture to go its own way with no interference from outside white sources making unreasonable demands to obey white laws. But this would require either the forced ceding of independent ghettoized city-states where the alien culture already dominates, or mass relocation into an all new state where the alien culture can do as it will.

Neither of these is likely to happen.

So we are stuck with a metastasizing alien culture in the body of the nation.

There is a third, less rational, solution which involves excising the source of the alien culture forcibly from the body of the nation. Possibly rehabilitating the true victims or excising them as well. The pain of this would be no less than the first Civil War. And perhaps no less necessary for the progress of the nation into race-free prosperity for all.

Leftism and Presumption of Guilt

RedState elaborates on the natural guilt of the Oppressor Class:

"This presumption of guilt is absolutely crucial to collectivism. The Left must teach its subjects to think of themselves as criminals. That’s the only way law-abiding people will endure levels of coercive power that would normally require specific accusations, a fair trial, and the possibility of appeals. Social-justice “crimes” can be prosecuted without any of those things. There is no appeal from the sentence, and no statute of limitations on the crimes, as any left-winger who thinks today’s American citizens need to suffer for the historical offense of slavery will be happy to explain to you. There’s no evidence you can present in your defense, for the Left has read your mind, and knows better than you what demons lurk in its recesses.

This is one reason the Left dislikes the trappings of constitutional law and order. The presumption of innocence is highly inconvenient for social crusades; it’s the antithesis of collective political “justice.” The current demonstrations against police officers include explicit calls to deny them due process (sometimes escalating to simply calling for their summary execution.) The Obama White House is said to be thinking about stripping police officers of grand jury protection, since those procedures have such a disappointing tendency to review evidence and decide charges are not warranted. The mob wants this because they are said to have “lost confidence” in the legal system. In other words, their ideology has revealed who is guilty, so legal proceedings based on overcoming the stout hurdle of presumed innocence are mere trickery to frustrate the righteous crusade."

If the Messiahs don't allocate you to the Victim Class, then you are automatically placed in the Oppressor Class, the class in which everyone is guilty by definition. If you are in the Oppressor Class you have been summarily judged and convicted merely by skin color, sex, or political affiliation. If you speak, it will be a hate crime. If you are mobile, then you are predatory. It's really very easy from the perspective of the Left. There is no utility in presuming innocence when your guilt is already established. Why else would you be in the Oppressor Class? You are an oppressor by virtue of the privilege contained in your skin tone. Wrong skin tone? Then you are an oppressor: guilty! Guilty!

But no guilt for the Messiah Class: they are genetically virtuous:

"It’s very convenient to declare that you don’t have to engage with dissenting ideas because they all drip from forked tongues, but there’s more to the liberal presumption of social guilt than that. It also flatters their egos – the Anointed Ones are the only members of society who aren’t guilty of prejudice, even when they display the most corrosive prejudice towards the groups they don’t like. Most importantly, it illuminates their vision of a righteous elite exercising vast power to force virtue upon miserable, unworthy citizens, who cannot be left unregulated to indulge their monstrous impulses. "

The entire purpose of the three-class system of Social Justice is to install the Messiahs into their deserved totalitarian positions of power. The nation has been conditioned to the new classes they inhabit:

"If you think micro-regulators should be running society, and government should be taxing money away from the proletariat before they hurt themselves with it, then by definition you don’t think very much of the people you’re planning to tax and regulate. You must see them as thieves, exploiters, and haters… their vision too short, and too clouded with bigotry, to make important decisions about the fate of the nation. Leftists have a boundless appetite for stories that reinforce their low opinion of the people they dominate… and to be honest, some of the dominated are hungry for reassurance that they did the right thing by ceding control of their lives, and the lives of their neighbors, to the Left. People who have relinquished their freedom must learn to think poorly of themselves, if they are to sleep well at night."

Although there are many names for the PC Police of the Social Justice Warriors, they all refer to the three-class, New Man theories that are Marxist or close variants of Marxist totalitarians. These people are intellectually stunted and emotionally weak, so they need to attain power for compensation of their emotional weakness and there are no intellectual barriers for those who have rejected truth, anyway.

Female Accountability

Vox Day made an interesting comment, one which seems to summarize many disparate issues: in today's feminist driven Messiah culture, women are not to be held accountable. While this applies to all Victimhood Groups, it is the feminists which control the campus and the dialog at the moment. Messiahism marches to the orders of feminists.

For example, it is being uncovered now that Jackie, the impetus behind the UVA rape fraud, also plagiarized love letters from TV shows. The entire Jackie fraud episode is raising no squall from the feminist Left. It was only the appearance of support for the Rape Culture Narrative that gained shrieks from the US president on down throughout the entire feminist Left. But the consequence of her lies brings no comments at all, except that her lies demonstrate a "broader truth".

As for consequences of this fraud, not a single player - not Jackie, not the writer, not the editor, not the university president - has encountered any fundamental consequence for her actions, other than having to dodge criticism and ridicule, neither of which influence Leftists.

The contrary to this is the university presidents and professors who have been fired and/or run off campus for statements which were, on the whole, pro-woman, yet not feminist enough.

The advent of the necessity for "trigger warnings" to prevent fainting and regurgitation by delicate women upon coming into contact with "situations" places the Victimhood Category into control of all situations, because any situation might be too much for the woman to bear. This means that men, any man, all men, are actually triggers, being rapists-in-waiting. Elevator-gate proved that.

It is now a designated Leftist fact that women are too fragile to survive in contemporary society. They cannot be held accountable because they are too fragile. Their accusations of persecution must be believed regardless of any actual material facts because the fragility of women in Leftist America places them into an alternative reality, one where they need not protect themselves from drunkenness or sexual predation, one where the existence of predation must be eradicated by eradicating the predators in order to protect the helpless females. In other words, an alternative reality where males can be only evil Oppressors: predators to be eradicated.

The necessary consequence is for men, not women. Feminist insistence on its Victimology necessarily requires misandry and the subsequent persecution of men. Under Victimology no designated victim can be responsible for her actions. This is demonstrated by black Victimhood, where terrorist actions are excused as merely "acting out frustratons". The same goes for the environment, where all bad weather is a reaction to human abuse of Gaia, while weather itself is no indication of AGW.

So a woman need not take precautionary measures, because males, the Oppressors, should be eradicated - that's the logic.

Females in this alternate reality should go ahead and behave however they wish - being as stoned and drunken as possible - and suffer no responsibility for their incapacity, much less any consequence from being incapacitated. They can easily see that only in a male-free universe can this be accomplished. That is Feminism Today. Basically lesbian totalitarian.

Punching Back

One fairly effective approach to dealing with the Social Justice Marxist Messiahs:

#GamerGate Anti-Bullying Campaign cost Gawker over a Million Dollars

"The cost to Gawker Media of its ridicule and viciousness toward video gamers was "seven figures" in lost advertising revenue, according to the company's head of advertising, Andrew Gorenstein. In addition, founder Nick Denton has stepped down as president and editorial director Joel Johnson has been removed from his post and will probably leave the company, reports Capital New York.

"Ultimately #GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission," Gawker writer Sam Biddle tweeted in October, sparking a firestorm of outrage which solidified into a sustained letter-writing campaign to Gawker's advertisers, which continues today, against the bullying of marginalised groups by mainstream media outlets.

A number of advertisers, including Adobe and Mercedes-Benz, distanced themselves from Gawker after receiving communications from GamerGate supporters. It is not known how much GamerGate, a consumer revolt advocating better ethics in video game journalism and rejecting feminist critiques of video games, may have cost other publishers."

Gawker got hit where it hurts, and it changed its ways and its personnel. Hopefully Barry will pursue Dunham with a suit, and the fraternity at UVa also will pursue a lawsuit; their rights were willfully violated.

Utopia, Whether You Want It or Not: The New Marxism

Evolution has brought us many things, not the least of which is the fruition of the original Marxism. The concepts which lubricated the introduction to actual Marxist revolutions included Atheism, and evolution. Atheism eliminated the old values and by extension, those who hold them. Evolution brought the concept of the New Man and the elimination of genetic flaws in the human race. Science in general brought the concept of engineering the New Man, and designing his utopian culture.

Marxism was designed around class struggle, never mind whether the classes actually wanted to struggle or not. In Russia, there weren’t sufficient productive workers to create a revolution, so the class struggle definition was expanded, and those who didn’t want the struggle were dispatched. Entire sub-classes, cultures, and peoples were dispatched. It was evolutionary as the New Man emerged.

The same thing happened in China and then in Southeast Asia and Cuba. Che Guevara was a huge fan of the New Man, and he executed numerous “old man” adherents as he and Castro built utopia on their island.

But in the Euro-western world, Marxism has had a tough go, because there are few suffering proletarians with a revolutionary bent, and the concept of reward for work (anti-Marxist) still holds promise. So Marxists have had to revise, slightly, the Marxist class-wars once again.

Despite that, and despite the horrifically bloody history of Marxist takeovers in the 20th century, Marxism survives and has infected much of the western culture and government. By changing the types of classes which are to be liberated, Marxists still promise utopia, a utopia of forced equality of outcome for all individuals, save the more-equal elitist Marxian Messiahs which bring about this utopia.

The name has been changed from Marxism to several new Messiah appellations: feminism; anti-racism; environmentalism; anti-exceptionalism, globalism; equalitarianism. Underlying all of these are the standard Marxist class-war categories of Messiah/Victimhood against Oppressors. And along with that comes the ever-present eliminativist revolution of the original Marxism.

The new Marxism targets western culture, its creators and supporters, with their new morality. The new morality mimics, inaccurately, the old morality. Thus it is a stealthy replacement. Equality of opportunity is replaced with equality of outcome, the reasoning being that the oppressors have a lock on opportunity. By oppressors is meant white Euro-American males along with their apologists of whatever stripe.

White Euro-American males are afflicted with all of the various Oppressor Category failures, some genetic and some environmental.

Genetic failures are obvious. Whiteness; maleness; genetic inability to exhibit the intellect and empathy required by Marxist Messiah demands.

Environmental failures affect not only males, but also any supporters they might have, and any moral stragglers. These include being born into the western male patriarchy, especially for those who are Southern or fly-overs; environmental abusers who abuse mother Gaia with coal and fossil fuel usage. But also included are those of opposing ideologies, such as those which emphasize personal character and responsibility as necessary for civil culture. White males are the primary target.

Each of the failures listed above has been institutionalized and weaponized as moral defects deserving guilt and repentance. Those defects could mostly be fixed with the right changes applied to individual males. But the brand-new defect, also genetic, cannot be fixed: it is a permanent defect. That defect is called “male priviledge” and “white privilege”, both of which are built into every white male before birth. The white male is blind to these defects; but the Marxist Messiah Class and their Victim Class have perfect detection systems for these abuses. And they are abuses, genetic abuses which every western white male is wielding as he walks around, thinking only that he is minding his own business, while actually abusing every Victim Class individual in his path by his mere existence in their span of vision. The power of his “privilege” abusiveness surrounds him like a huge force field. The white male virtually glows with privilege, burning everyone he contacts.

Along with the genetic defect of “white male privilege” come the ancillary abuses which merely the existence of white males cause. Prominent among these are the “Rape Culture” and the “Open Season On Blacks” abuses, for which all white men are responsible.

The less reticent amongst the Messiahs openly call for the eliminationist solution: sequester male sperm, then eliminate the men altogether. Utopia would immediately follow, since only the Messiahs and their Victim Groups would remain, freed from oppression. Happy, happy, happy.

Marxism, including in its new, semi-stealth form, is logically flawed, not that that is a problem for the Marxists. It is an Appeal To Personal Authority and it is circular. In other words, whatever the Marxist Messiahs declare is automatically Truth, by the authority of the declaration of themselves as authorities.

What they declare, up front, is that they reject the evil rules of common society. They will make new, moral rules for the behaviors of others, but not themselves. The Marxist Messiahs are morally free in the sense of having only anarchy for their own behavior. It is under the moral anarchy that they are free to dictate morality to everyone else: that is how utopia is created; it’s how utopia works.

A necessary presupposition for this, of course, is a firm Atheist foundation. Self-determination of moral elitism rarely is accomplished under, say, Christianity or other religions which acknowledge the moral eliteness of a creating deity, not of any individual human.

So it is that the New Marxist Messiahs create the following moral logic:

IF [ It’s not Utopia yet ], THEN [ class war, starting with moral outrage ].

And utopia is defined as,

(a) Complete equality of outcome for all except for the administering elite, Marxist Messiahs, i.e. equal captivity for Victimhood Class people;

(b) A New Man social construct for the ideal human is in place;

(c) All the old, evil morals do not exist, having been utterly destroyed;

(d) An all new moral structure dictated by the elite, Marxist Messiahs is in place, for those who are not the elite, Marxist Messiahs;

(e) The elimination of all of the Oppressor Class is complete.

The lessons of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che and Castro are completely lost on the new Marxists. The new Marxists are morally and intellectually superior to the Marxists who went before. Their morals and intellect are unquestionable, therefore their declarations are tautologies: automatic truths.

How do these new Marxists come about? There is a covetousness inherent in them. They covet that which they are too weak to attain legitimately; so they imbue it with hate and denigration to destroy it in others: the perception of genetic powers which they do not genetically possess. They do not wish to compete on a level playing field, they merely wish to have those powers by stripping them from the hated Other, thereby leaving them in power and control, even in their admittedly weak form – too weak to have power and control legitimately, but getting it anyway.

Stripping the other of power in order to give it to themselves is a form of false affirmation of their own value, a value which is power based and not accomplishment based. Affirmation must come easily and immediately, regardless of the morality involved in the attainment process. It is a perverted Will To Power, exercised in a morality-free fashion, against a designated Oppressor Class which is saddled with morals and ethics. In fact, the Oppressor’s own moral sense is used against him by foisting a warping of the concept of “fairness” on top of and suppressing actual Right and Wrong. If the Marxist Messiah declares something to be “unfair”, then it is automatically morally Wrong. These are the terms of the Culture War.

Marxism is well entrenched in education, where everyone gets a blue ribbon, boys are drugged to be the same as girls, and teachers “own” the children. Professors attack personal worldviews in college classrooms, with denigrations such as demands to stomp a piece of paper with the word “Jesus” on it. Civil Rights legislation discriminates against the Oppressor Class in order to benefit the Victim Classes. Blacks can kill blacks every day and be ignored by the Marxist elites; if a white kills a black, nationwide rioting occurs. In fact, gangs of blacks can hammer a white to death and there is no Marxist Messiah response at all. In short, outrage and violence is reserved for the designated Oppressor Class. So the concept of “fairness” is defined by the Marxist Messiahs, based on Class Identity.

There is absolutely no reasoning with the self-authorized, morally-elitist, Marxist Messiahs; they have abandoned rationality in their pursuit of affirmation by seizure of control. We cannot convince them of their folly, or to change sides. They must be stopped, not by reasoning, but by denying them victory. And that means meeting them in their war, and defeating them. Realizing that, accepting that, and taking that path wherever it goes has become necessary for the survival of civil, liberal, free society.

Addendum:
Oh yes. I forgot: Capitalism is an Oppressor.