Social Matter

If we consider liberal policies experiments in social engineering and their media a psychological operations network, we get a structure for postmodern conflict. History, like a Hindu god with many faces: of sex, race, faith, creed, and with unfinished business, inevitably resolves to act on the present. As liberalism wars on the reality of history, a billion tiny fates foil the plot.

French leftists initiated the population replacement project, nodding to Arab Muslims. Many of those same leftists, – men who lead this radical liberal experiment, – were executed by Arab jihadists in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. This is blowback. It is a harsh example of what occurs when postmodernity encounters the power of history, which they adamantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of.

Of course, the Arab Muslims of France cannot be Arab Muslims. They’re simply an ingredient in the future genderless creole formula of stateless, history-less “equals” comprising shape-shifting liberal eschatology.

In reality, a reality with history, this plays out as a suicidal Kafkaesque dystopia where nothing can be acknowledged in its own context with its own identity. It must be displaced into the netherworld of postmodernism where humans, like commercial products, are interchangeable novelties to be be summarily rebranded by marketing committees, reshaped like putty dolls.

No. History reemerges, which is why reactionaries worship Him. He does all the work. Truth is still the best medicine.

Yet some new wonder drug is always being advertised in magazines/television. Oftentimes, the drug claims to resolve a made-up ailment (“Restless Leg Syndrome” or “A.D.D.”) other times it professes to solve a common problem (sleeplessness or migraines). The label warnings take longer to explain than the actual purpose. Like clockwork, a year later, law firms are soliciting victims of the drug for class-action lawsuits in the same outlets they were originally advertised. Collateral damage to uninsured human bodies remains in medical ruins.

Similar warning labels ought be plastered over the ploys of liberal academia. We could even call them “contraindications” or “adverse reactions.” Like a toxic trial drug, the social engineering experiments proscribed to an unwitting Western public are never just what the label describes. The complex interactions that result are often bamboozling or self-cannibalizing. Like risky prescription drugs, the negative impacts are hellishly unpredictable.

In social psychology, the Boomerang Effect refers to the reactivity of people when they are being persuaded. For various subconscious and apparent reasons, many people end up believing the opposite of what a person (or organization) is attempting to persuade them of. There are many complexities to this, so in order to avoid from writing many paragraphs on the intricacies of the Effect, I’ll use a couple examples. The most evident would be the reaction to a hard-sell salesman. You may have actually wanted to purchase whatever this seller has, but because his technique is so aggressive, you end up disliking the product and rejecting the argument for buying it. Another interaction occurs in psychological warfare operations, when an attempt to coax a certain behavior out of the enemy results in completely unanticipated behavior due to misunderstood cultural nuances. These are just two examples of counterintuitive reactions that have many different varieties embodied by the general Boomerang Effect.

The phenomenon goes much further than psychological reactivity to social campaigns. Contraindications are everywhere. In many cases, leftist lawmaking results in wildly unexpected effects, – usually the opposite of what was intended. This results in both cognitive dissonance amongst the proponents of a failed policy, and message confusion amongst the many disjointed intersections of the left. The liberal media structure is forced to go to great lengths to avoid admitting collateral damage, much in the same way intelligence organizations expend massive resources covering up failures or disguising their own role in accidental catastrophes. Because we’re discussing leftist psychological warfare, an intelligence officer would call this effect “blowback.”

I first noticed this a few years back during a full-scale rape scare at a nearby college. It involved a quarterback and a female Liberal-Studies major (seriously), who, as it turned out, had no physical evidence of the “rape” and had made similar accusations of sex assault in the past. The community was carpet-canvassed by the activists you’d expect, and “rape culture” became the buzzword of local academics, taggers, neighborhood pundits, and helicopter moms.

By forcing these fear mongering slogans into the living rooms of a sheltered middle-class town, an unexpected (and wonderful) response followed. One can only call it “socially conservative,” as women began walking with chaperones, fathers demanded their girls be placed in all-female dorms, young men seemed less likely to hook-up with strangers for fear of being accused of an indiscretion. Even churches momentarily stopped worshipping the Che Guevara version of Christ to proclaim the importance of “family values” and the “sanctity of the female body.”

The accused was found “not-guilty,” but the impact of this campaign left a wide crater around the college town. By raving about the (nonexistent) “rape culture,” the “sex-positive” feminists had unintentionally suppressed their own burgeoning slut culture.  As I watched this real-life case study in group-psychology come full swing, I began seeing these blowback scenarios all around me. I have since discovered an entire litany of left-liberal schemes that resulted in outcomes distant to their planned goals. These may be from memes that represent their own political programs, or fully hatched plots implemented through liberal bureaucracies. These examples expose the confused, directionless praxis of liberalism. We can see postmodernity defeated by history in many of them.

“Hate Crime” Laws: You may be surprised to learn that blacks are disproportionately charged with “hate” crimes. Blacks are nearly twice as likely to be charged with a hate-crime than whites. So, the “minority” that was supposedly protected by this legislation has actually gone to jail for it (proportionally) more than any other group. Talk about backfire.

“1 Out of 4 Women Are Raped In College:” Does this create the expectation of sexual assault? Again, this patently false statistic is repeated by people who not only have no idea what they’re talking about, but also haven’t calculated the result of their sloganeering. Does this non-fact actually normalize sexual assault to the point that rape victims may view an attack as ordinary? Whether or not it does, the slogan clashes hard with the façade of sexually fearless feminism.

“No Means No:” Another bizarre mantra that seems to trivialize rape. Feminists have successfully reduced rape to a verbal misunderstanding. Even ten years ago when I was still in college this mantra was posted everywhere, and I never understood it. It seems to be nothing more than feminist power-propaganda, reminding men that women have the upper hand in the sexual economy (and legal arena). Bottom line: feminists have reduced a felonious crime to the banal “he said/she said” grey-scale of “yes/no/maybe,” – making rape appear more like a hearing-problem.

Cat-Calling: Perhaps you saw what happened when that feminist video group set out to “expose cat-calling” on the streets of New York? Every single pedestrian that whistled or yelled at the girl was either black or Hispanic. Feminists seem to desire a criminalization of all sorts of simply uncouth behaviors. But perhaps we should classify cat calling as criminal harassment, as these activists seem to desire. The result will be scores upon scores of “people of color” being jailed for simply speaking to white women without approval.  My own travels and life experience tell me that cat calling is very, very common in black and Hispanic areas, and almost nonexistent in white neighborhoods.

“Genderless” Bathrooms/Locker-rooms: This must be the most hilariously obvious bad-idea. Use your imagination when conceiving of all the blowback that will stem from this: from piss on toilets, to perverts, to closed bathrooms (due to liability), etc.

“White Privilege:” – A blatant psychological attack. As older “politically correct” terminology loses its edge, the term “white privilege” is now being deployed in an unbridled attempt to directly power-guilt whites with any pride. It’s another meme-mantra that gets attached to whatever issue happens to be convenient. Perhaps it’s just a bit too specific, because I’ve seen this term instantaneously switch-on people’s racial awareness. Because it is so directed, – not vaguely promoting “diversity” or “multiculturalism,” – but specifically targeting whites, it reveals too much about the agenda. When I first heard this term, it had a profound affect on me, and immediately activated a defense of my heritage (being descended from an Irish POW, an orphan, and Eastearn European refugees). As it gained more notoriety, this term allowed the New Right to more openly engage white racial issues without being accused of “making it about race.” Liberals are making the discussion distinctly about racial identity, so we should accept the invitation.

Gun Control: These attempts to rob (primarily) white males of their heritage, their self-defense, and masculinity, have always resulted in precisely the opposite of the intended effect. During Obama’s recent 2011/12 attempt to open a “national dialogue on gun safety,” (meaning: gun bans) assault rifles began flying off the shelves. Millions of firearms and high-capacity magazines were sold across the country, as almost always occurs during anti-gun campaigns.

Trigger Warnings: These amount to nothing more than soft-core censorship. By dragging “political correctness” to new extremes, the left has exposed just how hypersensitive they are.  We now have portions of Hamlet and historical entries on Conquistadores being wrapped in semi-censored “warnings” as if factual information has become as dangerous to leftists as infant choking hazards. This is excellent, as it proves the left is devolving into a socially paralyzed neurosis where even confronting certain concepts causes emotional collapse. We should encourage their own self-weakening programs, and the rejection of “political correctness” it causes.

With these examples in mind, doesn’t it appear that liberalism, like a many-tentacled creature wandering the darkness, is probing for some opening, some secret to history where they can find a tiny crack to be ripped open? Yet, every bizarre campaign, or law, or contrived etiquette they emit either nullifies itself, or backfires so radically they must act as if it never existed.

There are so many more that could be listed: mass immigration wiping out the working class (once the backbone of the left), marital/child support laws that ruin children, racial affirmative action which gifts minorities a lifetime of disappointment. In every case, the reason, the context, the history, the spirit of a thing is ignored for the sake of a postmodern, history-less world.

I use “postmodern” and “liberal” interchangeably.  This is because liberals proclaim to live beyond the “end of history,” (which apparently ended in the 90s) and they fruitlessly pursue a divorce from that past with all its inconveniently “divisive” hatefacts.

The Hebdo massacre is, again, a perfect reference point. As those cartoonists stood for nothing, they died for nothing. It is like an acid was self-neutralized.

In the game of Paper-Rock-Scissors there is no “Royal Flush,” no “checkmate.” There is no logical strategy for victory, – just a random circle of winning/losing options. This is the social policy of the postmodern left. You see it obviously in the Arab Spring with a few million dead, a few new dictators, new terrorism, or mass immigration to Europe and North America, which is an unequivocal disaster for the existing citizenry. The circle is self-nullifying and beyond the language we have to describe such phenomenon.

Liberals play the postmodern game they do not understand. It’s telling that terms such as “Orwellian” or “Catch -22” or “Kafkaesque” have entirely lost their oomph. A fish in water doesn’t see the water. To tell to dystopian man he lives in a dystopia is equally absurd.