In Phoenix, Arizona, a journalist encounters a left-leaning armed protest group. Also, a group called the Brown Berets, which also literally wears brown shirts with their uniforms.
Boston Antifa has a message for you: "There's a war going on, and if you're not part of it, you're in the way."
Amazingly, they have decided that while fighting a 'war' to 'overthrow this fascist regime' is the perfect time to press their own diversity agenda to try to make sure their leadership ranks aren't so darn male.
"Start dressing as women at home for practice, to see if you wouldn't mind it."
That's how you want to train for the revolution, by trying on clothes? The 101st Airborne won't have a chance, huh?
"Because as we know, women are better public speakers and far more eloquent than men."
Right, that's why all the famous speeches of human history were given by women.
They're apparently not joking about any of this, which is funnier still.
ReplyDeleteNow this, this is a classic case of not being careful what you wish for.
Like Clint Eastwood said to some punks in Grand Torino -"ever notice how every once in a while you run into someone you just shouldn't have fucked with?"
You know, John Brown was widely admired in the South because he died so bravely at his hanging. Kenneth S. Greenberg remarked on it in his history Honor & Slavery.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if any of these are ready to do as well.
So their idea of "thrusting power on women" (the jokes just write themselves, don't they?) apparently include having a woman introduce the subject, followed by a man urging the other men to listen to the woman?
ReplyDeleteGood Lord...
This ties in with the absurd nature of things like the cultural revolution, the banality of evil, etc.- It sounds and seems ridiculous, but when they get power it becomes a bizarre horror show.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me about these twits is their bizarre assumption that men "thrust" power on other men, rather than, say, men competing and fighting and clawing their way to the top, with plenty of less aggressive men falling by the wayside.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if the road to power were some kind of love-filled merit fest, where public minded folks calmly decide (based on reason and facts) who should be in charge. But I don't think I've ever seen things work that way.
And just as an aside, a skinny, nervous looking dude (who keeps glancing off camera, presumably at the women who put him up to this idiotic stunt), dressed in a wig and skimpy womens' clothing is not the kind of guy other men are normally inclined to listen to.
He looks more like the kind of kid who gets stuffed into dumpsters with predictable regularity. Not that that's a good thing, in my view. But again, trying to lecture men (or women) without first understanding how they think and act in real life strikes me as a foolish endeavor.
... men competing and fighting and clawing their way to the top, with plenty of less aggressive men falling by the wayside.
ReplyDeleteThat's true even in office environments. These guys think that they are trying to build an army to overthrow the most powerful government in the world.
People told me these groups didn't exist. So obviously they must not exist and are thus fake news.
ReplyDeleteThe Vietnamese that had their arm cut off after the Vietcong visited them, probably thought the same thing. It just depends. Most of propaganda is the truth, but it is the deception in it that traps people. It's always a matter of luck or skill which one humans fall on first.
Grim condescends to Leftists, even as he tries to understand them. And he has good reason to look down upon the armed Leftists or bomb throwers like Ayers. He shouldn't have applied it to Grand Strategy, since even the communists can win against the US while losing all the tactical wars, by having a superior strategy.
The point is, Lucifer is a master of warcraft and the art of deception, or the art of war in fact. The good thing about Sun Tzu is that he can make good soldiers out of pampered and decadent concubine women. A superior general creates superior soldiers and subordinates. Even if all he is given is trash.
Something to keep in mind for the Leftist alliance. They will be given better armed marksmanship training than AQ or ISIL was given. Similar to the firepower of BLM death squads that kept the Dallas police running around like chickens with their head cut off.
And as I've demonstrated before, Grim, don't fall for the stalking horse. Or rather, you can but it's bad tactics.
The Left, as always, is better as terrorists and insurgents than the Tea Party or Right wing nutter patriots. Well, that remains to be seen, but currently that is the status quo. They are better as Cadre. And you know what cadre means for an armed insurrection. Japanese military hierarchy were fools to use up their best pilots at the front, inevitably causing the Marianas Turkey shoot where inexperienced Japanese pilots lacking proper veteran instruction, failed against US veteran aces. BLM were fools to use one of their best marksmen in an active wet op, alerting civilian marksmanship trainers of what they were doing before they had finished crafting a cadre and later a Black Panther 50 death squad wing. They were fools to do so in the order they did, and I would never have advised them to do anything approaching that if I was running their strat ops. Which, of course, means obviously somebody else is running them, somebody like Soros.
Oh but Ymar is crazy to talk about death squads in 2008 and 2012, it's not like anything like that could happen in the US.
ReplyDeleteKeep believing that if it makes people feel safe. 9/11 sort of destroyed that American exceptional illusion about safety however.
One of the problems of calling people crazy and paranoid in the previous years, is that when you are forced by reality to accept that stuff as normal, what is your next trick?
Once the Left called Right wing tea bag nutters all kinds of names and used it against Bush II and Trum, what is their next trick?
That's how you want to train for the revolution, by trying on clothes? The 101st Airborne won't have a chance, huh?
ReplyDeleteIn order to train soldiers, their previous civilian morality must be broken down. It's why the US military has boot camp, to break down the endurance and psyche of the civilians to turn them into obedient and loyal soldiers that will obey the command to shoot, or march or die, without hesitation.
It is not an orthodox method, certainly. But for those that can see beneath human deception, it is easy to see. What better way than to get rid of a civilian's previous morality and identity, than to have them do things in public that permanently set them apart? It's gang Initiation psychology even. Another popular bit is to take another name. "Tanya"
This is why condescending against the Leftist alliance is dangerous, Grim, and I warned you numerous times over the years about it. It affects your long term view and strips you of your "logic", and you don't see what your military experience should have made obvious.
They're apparently not joking about any of this, which is funnier still.
I'm sure you laughed about Ayers having revolutionary disciples and being relevant, until Hussein broke your country apart while you refused to see. If you wish to repeat the mistakes and pain of the past few years, that is your choice to make.
It's more likely that these people are playing out their fantasies, Ymar, than that they are subjecting themselves to military discipline of any kind. Fantasies of being brave revolutionaries, but also other sorts of fantasies as well.
ReplyDeleteFantasies of being brave revolutionaries, but also other sorts of fantasies as well.
ReplyDeleteYou mean, like, cross dressing? :)
*running away*
C'mon, that's GOT to be a troll. Has to be.
ReplyDeleteBut that's the world we live in now- where you just can't be sure.
The old book "Games Mother Never Taught You" is an awfully helpful one, I think. It's aimed at young women who were brought up to believe that the way the business world works is a bit like an orderly classroom: someone gives you fair notice of the standards for getting a good grade, and if you follow the rules you're entitled to receive the gold star on a certain schedule. The author points out that a business just wants to know if you're a profit center or a cost center; if you're a cost center, you'd better be worth the cost. If you're a profit center you'll get cut a lot more slack. It's not about whether you're a good person.
ReplyDeleteA lot of women obsess over perfecting some activity that they've privately decided is intrinsically worthy, without checking in with the owners of the business on the subject of whether they think it's crucial. (The author calls it "polishing knotholes.") Then they're crushed and/or furious when they don't get an automatic raise or promotion. They often don't even understand that typically they're required to ask and negotiate openly for a raise or promotion, and that they likely won't get it if their bosses wouldn't be too upset to see them leave and take another job.
The epidemic of snowflake-itis isn't exactly new; it's how a lot of women traditionally were raised. What's new is the idea that it's not a mistaken way to be raised, and in fact that businesses should accommodate themselves to it. Oh, and it's also new that young men seem to be falling for it now, too.
You mean, like, cross dressing? :)
ReplyDeleteI mean, that outfit didn't come out of nowhere.
...a bit like an orderly classroom: someone gives you fair notice of the standards for getting a good grade, and if you follow the rules you're entitled to receive the gold star on a certain schedule.
Yes, and citizenship is like a parent-child relationship too. Funny how we always seem to end up as the children in these models.
Pree-zackly.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with almost all of Tex's comment (I've seen the same behavior in women - many seem to expect the workplace to be far more personal/personalized than it actually is), I don't think the way women are raised is "wrong" or "snowflakey".
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, it's more a question of situational awareness - suiting your behavior to the time and place.
Within a family, you learn the rules and you teach children that the world is full of social rituals and traditions and norms and other people's feelings and expectations. Unless you're planning on living on a deserted island, finding your place in a society you didn't make is a pretty durned important survival skill (both as a matter of courtesy to others and simple self interest - the reasonable expectation of reciprocity is the foundation of civil society). Take that away, and things get savage pretty quickly.
A work environment, OTOH, is composed of people who - in addition to having no familial bonds, are in many cases actively competing with each other. The purpose for which businesses exist is profitable exchange - you provide something others want, and they give you something you want (money, which you can spend however you choose). The more value you provide, the more money you can earn and if you provide something that's innovative or hard to come by, you can charge even more.
A work ethic doesn't translate to family settings (I'm not going to refuse to feed a helpless infant or change its diaper until it provides me with the market value for these services, unless I want the neighbors to call CPS). Caring and willingness to sacrifice are vital here.
At work, they cause you to be taken advantage of and valued less. This is hard for many women (myself included) to understand. It's puzzling to see selfish, arrogant, aggressive people get ahead while hard working team players are less valued. But the world is what it is. Stomping your feet and demanding that it change to suit your wishes is childish and counterproductive :p
Openly competitive behavior was trained out of most women of my generation. I happen to think women do better in the workplace when we compromise between what we want and what our bosses want (IOW, negotiate outcomes we and our employers are happy with). Often, that means less money and less stress but more autonomy.
At least that's what I wanted - and have gotten. I simply don't want the same things many men want, nor should I have to.
Since I'm musing today (it's rainy and I'm avoiding planning out a new project for another 15 minutes), I've always thought that this difference in expectations - women expecting to be rewarded if they play well with others, men expecting to be rewarded only if they stand up for themselves - causes a lot of problems in marriages as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen we married, I think we both expected we'd have to work at the relationship. But I worked a TON more than my husband did in the beginning. And dammitall, I expected to be valued for my hard work! But it didn't work that way, because I was too forgiving of minor slights or inconsiderate behavior. I thought I was being a team player, but over the first 18 months of our marriage, I slowly realized that however laudable my impulses were, I was actually making my husband feel guilty.
Not my fault, not his fault. I had to learn to stand up for myself more (I have a strong personality, so my meekness was more of a decision than my nature). I think when I failed to object to behavior that bothered me, the spousal unit got the message that it *didn't* bother me. And also, on some level he knew it would have bothered him, so he respected me less.
It annoys me no end when either men or women want to hold up "the way I see the world" as "the right way to see the world". Both frameworks have their uses, and one of the best things about marriage is that you slowly learn to see the world through your partner's eyes, at least some of the time. And as a result, you both become better, more versatile people.
I agree with you in this respect: it's definitely not a good idea to translate the business environment to all of one's personal interactions! And I don't mean to imply that all business relationships should be a red-in-tooth-and-claw competition, either. It's just that, as Grim notes, the simple childhood model of "follow some predictable rules and advance up a predictable ladder" doesn't work at the job. At most, it works well in a certain kind of civil service position that (as you all have no doubt guessed) I don't think well of.
ReplyDeleteA business relationship in which we are flexible about seeing how what we want meshes with what an employer wants needn't be hostile. It's probably going to be a lot less predictable and comfortable than the child's model of following the rules, but if we learn to deal with that uncertainty it can be civil and mutually rewarding, even warm. Certainly we have to learn to live with rules! But as adults, we need to have learned to do so in an adult way. Part of that is recognizing that our environment isn't a coin-operated vending machine. We don't get to say, "I do exactly this, you give me exactly that." But naturally I agree that, often, if we're raising a child or training an animal, we have to start with extremely simple and predictable instruction-and-reward models, and that much of the interaction won't involve give-and-take at all but will be based on the kind of generosity that's appropriate to an adult dealing with helpless children.
Traditionally many women were raised to believe that a lot of ordinary, pleasant, functional businesslike behavior was unladylike. A lady wasn't to ask for things, only to be politely grateful when she received gifts. To bargain overtly was to be a coarse fishwife. Boys were raised with a lot more rough-and-tumble. I don't think it's entirely a bad idea to have raised the current generation with some more consideration of alternative ways of looking at things, including traditionally feminine viewpoints, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of turning young millennial men loose into the marketplace with the same lack of basic business skills that used to plague gently reared young women. I don't care for the likely effect on their voting habits, either.
Ah, just read your second comment. Agree completely. It reminds me, too, of what a marriage counselor friend once referred to as the "BS telepathy" that he's always battling with his clients. "He should just know I don't like that!" It's strangely difficult, isn't it, to learn to say, "Hey, I don't much like that." Not start WWIII over it over anything, not condemn his character, just calmly communicate boundaries. It's also amazingly difficult to learn that your partner in marriage doesn't automatically like and dislike exactly the same things you do.
ReplyDeleteI don't like asking for help. I've had to learn that it's a really, really bad idea to resent not getting help I didn't ask for. My husband has had to learn that he sometimes needs simply to acknowledge that I'm in a tough spot, without becoming angry and frustrated over the fact that he can't necessarily fix it--without even making up a demand (which I'm not making) that he fix it. So I do less of the "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I'm going in the garden and eat some worms," and he does less of the "I can't afford to notice you're in distress, because then I'd have to face my own failure to construct an ideal world for you." I work on being clearer: am I in distress that he can/should help to fix? Is he standing on my toe at this instant?
It's an interesting marriage between two people who were raised to believe that the highest skill was to do without. "I can do without normal human contact." "I can do without food and water." "I don't even need air. I can live on the surface of the Moon." I love reading Cassandra's views of home life because, as far as I can tell, no one is trying to live on the surface of the Moon.
Maybe they thought "John Brown" meant they were going to get to lead everyone in a counting song.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, that's GOT to be a troll. Has to be. But that's the world we live in now- where you just can't be sure.
ReplyDeleteYou know, you'd think so, but go check out the other videos on their FB page. They feature the same people, and while it's possible they may be playing characters to embarrass Antifa, they're usually boring and sincere-sounding. 'Now we will practice common chants used to protest Trump.' 'Now I will tell you how to find and join a chapter of Antifa.'
Traditionally many women were raised to believe that a lot of ordinary, pleasant, functional businesslike behavior was unladylike. A lady wasn't to ask for things, only to be politely grateful when she received gifts. To bargain overtly was to be a coarse fishwife.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I also think (actually, I know in my case) that my upbringing made me uncomfortable with conflict.
...I'm not thrilled with the idea of turning young millennial men loose into the marketplace with the same lack of basic business skills that used to plague gently reared young women. I don't care for the likely effect on their voting habits, either.
Amen!
It's strangely difficult, isn't it, to learn to say, "Hey, I don't much like that." Not start WWIII over it over anything, not condemn his character, just calmly communicate boundaries. It's also amazingly difficult to learn that your partner in marriage doesn't automatically like and dislike exactly the same things you do.
ReplyDeleteThat was hard for me. I tend to clam up when I get mad and just fulminate silently - the NERVE of some people! - because complaining seems humiliating/distasteful to me.
But so is resentment - the bane of womankind :p It's even worse when I realize I've done that to my ownself.
It's more likely that these people are playing out their fantasies, Ymar, than that they are subjecting themselves to military discipline of any kind.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you ignore the strategic hierarchy in favor of the tactical incompetence. The Abraham Lincoln brigade were full of similar idealistic or passionate people playing to their fantasies. That doesn't mean they were of little worth to the commissars that made good use of such manpower.
Military discipline is not something soldiers volunteer themselves to, but rather it is placed over them to change their natures by the hierarchy and command. If military discipline were defined by voluntary actions... one wouldn't even need a military hierarchy and chain of command. I seriously doubt Americans volunteered to serve in Vietnam to glorify the likes of John Fing Kerry and other superiors like him. They didn't volunteer for Operation Iraqi Freedom just to see Hussein Obola arm their enemies and make all their sacrifices in vain either. But that is what being under authority and discipline means, you don't get much of a say in the future or what the higher ups decide is useful or not.
There may be some hierarchies where people do get a say, but normally they are not the Army. Maybe the special forces and secret societies.
As for me, I don't judge things based upon whether they are likely or not. I base it upon the character of the Leftist alliance, on human nature, which is to say on evil. It hasn't failed me so far. More than can be said for the Tea Party at least. My judgment is closer to the quantum qubits created by D-wave. Process all things in parallel.
As for me, I don't judge things based upon whether they are likely or not.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that.
What I'm not sure you recognize is: that's the very reason I dismiss almost everything you say. Consider Aristotle, from the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics:
Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.
You're ignoring this fundamental truth, and trying to reason about politics as if it were strict logic. In doing this, you lose the whole. When you can see why, you might have something to say.