Given how my thoughts continue to be disjointed and chaotic in recent weeks, it seems only fitting that this post is going to have much the same structure as my last one (for what it’s worth, I’m tossing around the idea of making this a regular thing). Let’s hop in!
I can’t say that I’m the first person to have noticed this, but it has become increasingly clear to me that something fundamentally changes in a person around the 130 I.Q. mark. People below this point generally all process things the same way, just with some people better at it than others. Past 130, the underlying cognitive process seem to change. People being to think about things using process that just don’t exist in the minds of most.
Furthermore, there is a diversity in the way intelligent people process things that does not exist among the mere average. Some are able to make analogies that go above the heads of other people. Some are able to visualize the world and think in symbols instead of words. Some have what can only be described as an insanely powerful intuition, with brilliant answers to problems popping into their heads without conscious thought.
Two people around the 120 mark will generally process things the same way. Two people around the 140 mark might have very different processing styles. Two people around the 160 mark might as well be different species, not just compared to the average 98-IQ rube, but (depending on processing styles) also possibly to each other.
If I recall correctly, Kant once postulated that a perfectly rational agent would voluntarily subject itself to a logical morality (though this might have been someone else…I can’t say I’m all that brushed up on my Kant). I was thinking to myself the other day that the debate over whether God is subject to the laws of nature takes on a very different character if one postulates that God created the laws of logic and the universe and then subjected itself to them.
There are three parts to the great trifecta of mass indoctrination: education, news, and entertainment. The greater prevalence of transsexual characters and actors in the third is one of the opening salvos of World War T.
Take for instance, the show Sons of Anarchy, which has now has entangled one of its main characters in a relationship with a male-to-female transsexual. Surely this is capitulation to the progressive imperative at work?
On the other hand, this is a relationship between a transsexual hooker and a sexually-depraved biker who in previous seasons was implied to be a necrophiliac and who has expressed joy at the thought of doing things such as shoving a flute up a man’s ass when torturing him for information. Both characters have been depicted as sexually deviant (bordering on deranged). They freely admit that their relationship is partly a means of signalling just how far beyond the pale they both are. This subplot might be a means of signalling progressivism, but it’s also a natural development for both of these self-styled “freaks”.
Sons of Anarchy isn’t exactly a progressive show. If anything, it’s anarcho-fascist. It would not be a stretch to think of this show as the narrative version of The Way of Men. This is a show about violent outlaw bikers, after all (one that manages to pull off a level of graphic violence that frequently surpasses anything you would see on HBO).
Side note: Funny how an anti-progressive show like Sons of Anarchy manages to have some of the strongest female characters on TV. It’s almost as if progressivism undermines the ability to create complex, interesting female characters.
It’s a pity that we live in a day and age in which the personal is political, because this is a storyline that is interesting and worthwhile and makes sense for both characters, and now it’s been tainted with the lingering feeling at the back of the mind that this is a bone that had to be thrown to the progressive inquisition.
Do social justice warriors make such a big deal about cultural conditioning and social constructs because they tend to be more impressionable and less capable of discerning good ideas from bad? If this were the case, they would need the heavy hand of an intellect with more agency and cognitive firepower to tell them which ideas are good and bad.
Social Justice Warriors. The natural slaves?
The trick to being a proficient writer is to write a lot. The trick to writing anything interesting is the a result of having had interesting experiences. The trick to being a writer that can transcend time seems to be to have a remarkable associative horizon. If this is lacking, drugs and altered states of conscious (anything from tiredness to insanity) can serve as a crutch. They can’t match the same heights, but they still provide a boon to the normal, unaltered mind.
A conversation with a radical progressive about women:
“I’m very attracted to Asian women.”
“That’s pretty creepy, dudebro. Better rethink your preferences.”
“I find Latina women to be very attractive.”
“Sounds like you’ve internalized socially constructed stereotypes of Latinas as sensual and hyper-sexual. I’m not even going to go into how wrong that is.”
“There’s something about black women I find very appealing.”
“Congratulations, you’ve just turned them into exotic sex objects. Way to treat them as human beings, asshole.”
“I like white women.”
“I like women”
“Stop objectifying them.”
“I don’t like women”
Neo-paganism serves as anti-modern signalling far more than any sort of framework for religious guidance, but that’s the point. You’ll notice that political moderates and people who are generally mainstream don’t claim to hold such beliefs. Pagans are generally divided between the (far-larger) left-wing, hippie camp and the reactionary/identitarian right-wing brigade.
I’m not opposed to the idea of promoting right-wing paganism as a way of driving people to reaction, but any broad revival of paganism is going to require an incredibly potent necromancy. I won’t profess to any skill in this field of magic, but it strikes me that this is an instance in which pagans could learn from Christians.
There is a long history in the Christian tradition of claiming that saints and other important religious figures have appeared to people to give them guidance and advice. If the pagans want to start taking ground in this new culture war, they might want to try this approach (i.e. “I follow *Odin/Athena/Horus/insert deity* here because *he/she/it* appeared to me and gave me guidance and strength when I needed it most.”)
Feminists make a big deal about violence against women (probably because it secretly turns them on, but that is another discussion entirely). They also claim to stand for equality. Women are subject to male violence at far lower rates than men. Sounds pretty unequal to me.
Promote equality. Slap a feminist today!