“I Saw Goody Proctor With The Devil!”

In the previous post’s discussion about a person’s innate disgust being the fount of his political dissent (“The Power of the Weak Stomach”), a reader provides a link to The Daily Shoah’s podcast and writes:

BTW: here is a podcast with Pleasureman in which liberal disgust reactions of the sort I mentioned are discussed from about [1:15:00 to 1:25:00]

Within its roughly ten-minute segment starting around 1:15:00, one of the hosts describes an incident he witnessed within his family circle, involving a middle-class liberal woman’s expression of her apparent disgust with another culture.

I listened to that ten-minute segment. It was fascinating. And sadly, familiar. He vividly described a family gathering in which his female relative flew into inchoate rage, triggered by a fluff-news television footage of a politician doing photo-ops with a group of Southern duck hunters, all of them posing in camo and hunting gear. The podcast’s host made it clear that the woman’s anger did not come from an anti-hunting or an animal rights perspective. She simply despised those people reflexively and out of proportion with any rational cause. When pressed, he said, she was unable to justify her feelings.

Circling back to our discussion of gut-level disgust: was that woman’s vitriol toward a harmless and faraway group of Southron Christians an example of an innate “weak stomach” prejudice against contamination? A case could be made that similar to how conservatives recoil from things such as immorality, liberals innately recoil from displays of tradition. If true, this would complicate my theory that the level of a person’s disgust threshold helps determine his political orientation; specifically, my thought that the higher the threshold, the more tolerant he is of degenerative things and thus he becomes a liberal, while a low disgust threshold leads him to reject those thing and lean conservative. So now if liberals vomit upon seeing harmless Southerners on television, does that make the biological reality of the disgust threshold itself an atavistic relic in its unreliable identification of the unclean?

I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Rather, I think that woman’s rage came off like it was a product of socialization rather than an inborn reflex — in that sense, the opposite of the disgust-reflex. Going by my own familiarity with similar people, it sounded to me like she had been guided over a long time to redirect her latent aggression, as well as her more rational frustrations with life in a multiracial society, toward a decoy target: working class Christian Southerners in this case. As the podcast’s host put it, her behavior struck him as downright unnatural (meanwhile the disgust reflex is the most natural thing in the world) — and disturbingly sadistic in its intensity.

I’ve seen this more than once. Recently, a woman outside of my inner personal circle but with whom I share a bond launched into an ugly tirade about how only glue sniffers — her words — would vote for that “literal retard” Donald Trump. The girl I’m talking about is a striver with a family. She is a nice person and neither a weirdo nor a hipster, certainly not a Social Justice Warrior, and comfortable but not rich. Avoiding surfeit of diversity, as she’s admitted in the past, is a guiding principle in how she structures her life, just like it is for the rest of us in this post-racial utopia. There is no upside for her, should her attitude find political realization in Trump’s loss. And yet, she rants manifestly at odds with her interests. My best explanation is that this otherwise high-functioning girl and others like her is under the spell of a broad but shallow eruption of mass hysteria.

What could have caused this hysteria, hers, the woman’s in the podcast, and on down to omega-female Trigglypuff?

Similar things have happened before, infamously 300 years ago in colonial Salem. In that particular case, historians have speculated about hallucinogenic effects of mold in their grain stores. You can also point to the female tendency toward ruthless enforcement of in-group conformity. “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil!” That’s how the mean-girl rids the village of that creepy spinster. And you can point to female grudge-holding when she then denounces the goodwife who’s given her judging glares. Tie a noose around her neck too! She’s a witch! And finally, those impulses are wrapped in her solipsistic denial of her own wrong-doing. Formalize those amoral impulses in pseudo-theological language with moral license to condemn innocents, whip up a sense of false clarity from the pulpit, and neighbors hang from ropes.

The pulpit: in 17th century Salem, preachers invoked witches. Today, the girls who’d destroy a group of Republican-voting duck hunters, if they could, have drawn their pre-moral certitude from television outlets like The Daily Show and its former host Jonathan Leibowitz (stage name “Jon Stewart”). Yes, we let them vote.

Why am I bothering to write about this? I am writing about this because we have to deal with these top-down engineered nation-sinking eruptions of treasonous mass hysteria and our future depends on our effectiveness in dealing with them. We’re dealing with nature, its soft uglier face in the underbelly of the female. And you can’t fight nature, and you really shouldn’t desire to. But we have to arrest the influence of those who’d bend its flow to malicious ends. And we have to reassert ownership over what’s ours.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on ““I Saw Goody Proctor With The Devil!”

  1. Silly bitches and the beta-boys who cower before them.

    In coming years we’re going to have to make some hard decisions and do things from which today we might recoil.

    Raise up the whip hand and let the blood flow.

  2. Rather, I think that woman’s rage came off like it was a product of socialization rather than an inborn reflex — in that sense, the opposite of the disgust-reflex. Going by my own familiarity with similar people, it sounded to me like she had been guided over a long time to redirect her latent aggression, as well as her more rational frustrations with life in a multiracial society, toward a decoy target: working class Christian Southerners in this case. As the podcast’s host put it, her behavior struck him as downright unnatural

    Unnatural, perhaps, but perfectly ordinary. But as I said before, this only deepens the mystery framed best by Vladimir. (BTW: of all the people I’ve encountered in these alternative internet venues, I judge him to be in the very top tier of serious thinkers and one of the worthiest and most erudite and formidable intellectual sparring partners around. Email me if you’d like me to set up an introduction, which I’m certain would be mutually satisfying for you both.)

    The mystery again is why a minority of otherwise highly capable, well-functioning and socially savvy individuals tend to resist the mainstream, high-status social channelization and stick faithfully to their contrarian attitudes even when they clearly and consciously recognize that doing so comes at the cost of forgone success and even some considerable personal sacrifice.

    Now, one can always say that this too is a genetic feature like other hard-wired aspects of personality, and I don’t have much reason to doubt it. Indeed, it’s my going suspicion and presumption. Nevertheless, I’ll concede that this explanation has the stink of ‘epicycles on epicycles’ about it. It’s not quite ‘unfalsifiable’ given the possibility of studies of the inheritability of these tendencies, but at this point it still seems highly speculative.

    Note: I am excluding the large set of contrarians who are so because of the equivalent of some ingenerate mental defect and can’t synchronize with the social norm or zeitgeist across a wide spectrum of positions – whether accurate or not – due to some set of character flaws and/or psychological abnormalities. It is here you will find all manner of delusional internet cranks and crackpots, paranoid conspiracy theorists, the worst kinds of low-brow tribalists of bad character, smart but undisciplined underachievers, those who seem skilled or knowledgeable on the surface but who are really intellectually ‘hollow’ imitators of the genuine articles, cultural outcasts and social misfits, and those with ‘Asperger’s / Autism Spectrum’ type difficulty reading and conforming to signals of prevalent social attitudes. Also note that some people may be so high-functioning that they can overcome even very serious manifestations of these anti-social tendencies while still producing quality output. Given Auster’s notorious reputation for, ahem, low agreeableness and high irascibility, and some major shifts in viewpoint from his early lifetime, he seems like a possible example of this category.

    Collectively these groups may actually make up a majority of the participants in, or audience of, contrarian or heterodox social media. If these people are ever right it is merely in the sense of a stopped clock. These misfits, desperate for the affirmation and social validation they cannot obtain in their real lives with their lackluster personal assets, are looking to find an alternative status hierarchy in which signalling fanatical dedication to their idiosyncratic attitudes might win them a substitute form of prestige.

    They will tend to be hangers-on to any attempt to engage in serious contrarian discourse, and keeping them away or at least preventing from spoiling the soup is a first order issue. Vladimir has also identified the challenging dilemma of trying to maintain rigorous standards by means of personnel selection, which requires quickly detecting and filtering these folks out, while also simultaneously being an open forum that can sustainably continue fill its ranks via self-recruiting. This problem is of course compounded by the difficulties posed by both the official and volunteer thought police and inquisitors who are eager to impose the social tyranny of their ideological orthodoxy, and suppress, subvert, or squelch such conversations altogether, and dox and excommunicate the interlocutors from the ranks of respectable society.

    Anyway, getting back to guesses about Vladimir’s mystery, one guess I have is a spin off of something akin to psychological ‘imprinting’. My guess is that certain of these high-functioning individuals enter into a mentally plastic and formative period – perhaps simultaneous with early puberty, and, for a combination of reasons, are exposed to social and environmental cues that lead them to lay a bad foundation (in terms of aligning with the future mainstream) when constructing their ideological persona and embracing the logic of its whole system of nationalizations. Some of this may be a kind of innocent miscalculation on their part, perhaps imagining that their views will remain respectable in the future and not get shoved outside the coming Overton window, and therefore dedicating themselves to becoming prominent expositors of this worldview won’t be harmful to their interests and instead will grant their high status, success, and accolades within their coalition.

    All this then becomes a rigid part of their ‘identity’ later on, especially if they experience any ‘confirmation’ of their social calculations and the reinforcement of success and positive social feedback. However, unlike, say, your typical conservative who will bend like a reed to the new zeitgeist when the pressures and incentives increase, these individuals are ‘locked-in’, having too rigid, stubborn, and irreversible attachment to the original imprint of their ideological identity and the logic of the arguments that served them so well for so long.

    They are like old dogs that cannot learn new tricks, but the new tricks are all bunk, so it’s for the best, although, they will certainly be socially penalized for their adherence to beliefs that were respectable, and wouldn’t make one totally radioactive, until just yesterday. Once the two groups could ride trains together, the typical conservative train perhaps always traveling a mile or so behind the progressive one. But at some point the progressive train wouldn’t pick up anyone expressing certain views anymore, and neither would the conservative train, and those who wouldn’t or couldn’t change found themselves stranded at the station.

    I think this is a more likely explanation for people like Sailer and Derbyshire, whom I respect more than almost anybody. To the extent I can assess myself fairly, I think this is probably how I got on this train too. And it seems to also be an explanation for most of the conservative-leaning ex-libertarians or libertarian-learning ex-conservatives that inhabit these parts and who I most admire. By the time we realized we had alighted on a deceptively attractive station with its own faults, the trains had already traveled too far in psychological distance to catch. So we have little choice but to stubbornly ‘cast down our buckets where we are’ in terms of rebuilding something better.

  3. Pingback: “I Saw Goody Proctor With The Devil!” | Reaction Times

  4. PA…

    Why not just “see” things as straightforwardly as possible?

    When the “white” females screech that Donald Trump is a “racist,” they are signaling to the rest of “us” how much they hate their white fathers being in charge.

    The “white” females are self-annihilators.

    IT DOES NOT MATTER whether by “nature” or nurture.

    They glimpse the possibility of their “father” to be in charge once again and this sets off a wave of emotion that seems to have no rhyme or reason… But only because the intense hatred for white father is so deeply buried and unconscionable in the “public mind.”

  5. Jew feminism and media control caused this problem.

    Solution:

    1. Eliminate Jewish control of the media, Hollywood, the government, and the creation of “money.”

    2. Women can’t vote (or be lawyers, judges, members of congress at state or federal level, or jurors).

    Simple, really. Do we white men have the balls to save our women from themselves and the Jews?

  6. “Avoiding surfeit of diversity, as she’s admitted in the past, is a guiding principle in how she structures her life, just like it is for the rest of us in this post-racial utopia. There is no upside for her, should her attitude find political realization in Trump’s loss. And yet, she rants manifestly at odds with her interests. My best explanation is that this otherwise high-functioning girl and others like her is under the spell of a broad but shallow eruption of mass hysteria.”

    Perhaps her rationale for disdaining Trump is that she clearly sees the evident truth that Trump is neither here-no-there in being for-or-against ‘diversity,’ whether in its literal or derogatory form. Meanwhile, she sees that Trump has issues re. his temperament, ego and maturity that transcend partisan stances; many-upon-many people don’t think it’s good to hand the power of the U.S. President to someone with the maturity and impulse control of a 12-year-old boy.

    W had his own problems involving personal qualities not being suitable for the job, partisanship notwithstanding; similarly, the job of U.S. President ideally requires someone capable of making very serious socially consequential decisions about subjects like war and national fiscal policy —- all of which ideally expressed with the grammar and syntax of a confident adult. Well, despite those reasonable requests, W still managed to get elected and we suffered for that very lack.

    Some people this time around don’t want to repeat the established mistakes of the past.

  7. Nikcrit…

    What you meant was the “maturity and impulse control of a 12-year-old “black” boy for your imaginarily deracinated retort to possess any poingnant effect.

  8. One gets so memetically beaten senseless with the idea that one acts in his own self-interest that he “forgets” his interest lay in self-annihilation.

  9. No one other than the mad mind of the anti-white Supremacist BELIEVES that a 12 year old “black” boy is equal to a 12 year old white boy. And so any attempt at drawing equality between Trump and JUST a 12 year old boy WILL FALL COMPLETELY FLAT in relation to those not infected with the mad mindedness of anti-(white) Supremacy.

  10. Handle, it would be a pleasure to meet you, Vladimir, and a number of others in this sphere but that’s out of my comfort zone in terms of anonymity. The discussion on Vladimir’s Mystery (let’s make that a coinage) has generally looked at mechanistic explanations, which admittedly I started with the “disgust” theme. That’s not to say they aren’t valid — they are fascinating, as your comment and this hopefully ongoing discussion has been, and they explain quite a lot. Yet when thinking about the alt-Right figures we admire, as well as ourselves at our occasional best moments or at least ourselves where we strive to be, my eye darts toward what Zbigniew Herbert in his poem The Power of Taste calls out as “fibers of soul [and] cartilage of conscience.”

  11. “I think this is a more likely explanation for people like Sailer and Derbyshire, whom I respect more than almost anybody.”

    –With respect to high-functioning autism, you’ve got it exactly backwards (which is itself kind of an autism ‘tell’). Auster was ethnically Jewish, which as a huge Auster fan I’m willing to allow as self-explanatory for his loveable irascibility. Yes, I wish he would’ve shucked a tad or two more of the ethnic pride (or at least not allowed himself to get trolled by faux-WNs who routinely emailed to congratulate him for realizing Jews should be exterminated–naturally triggering displays of righteous indignation), but his complaints against Cochran, Derb and, in particular, Sailer were mostly just.

    Sailer enjoys fine patches of witty, pugnacious, dryly hilarious writing, but his culture-vulturism truly is execrable. In many respects he underperforms a bright 10th grade girl (in his review of the last Anna Karenina adaptation, he doesn’t let his admission that he’s never read Tolstoi stop him from fanboying over Tom Stoppard, whom he HAS read and is a big fan of).

    Sailer really is shockingly ignorant of a vast many things. He seems sincerely unmindful Shakespeare wrote anything of significance between Hamlet and The Tempest. For someone whose “movie reviews” are almost Marxist in their focus on the material circumstances of the film’s gestation, he is remarkably ignorant of things like the editing process (one of his endlessly repeated mantras is, “I’d like to see Editor’s Cuts of movies instead of Director’s Cuts”– little guessing, apparently, how many celebrated auteurs spend vast amounts of the editing process pacing anxiously outside the editing room like a father-to-be). His golly-gee obsession with Charles Murray’s utterly unnecessary check-cashing spreadsheet on college textbook indices, “Human Achievement”, includes wowzers like his comment on the calculation that Mozart and Beethoven were the two greatest composers: “Sounds about right to me.” lozlzozl Good God, Steve, what are you, Bob Costas? Except, as about ninety commenters pointed out to him, everybody and their mother irl gives Beethoven’s slot to Bach.

  12. — Meanwhile, she sees that Trump has issues re. his temperament, ego and maturity that transcend partisan stances (Nikcrit)

    No, she’s a smart and lovely person but her forays into politics make Salon look sophisticated. It’s a Millennial woman thing. It’s media-stoked hysteria fueled by amped-up and internalized female status signaling.

    — many-upon-many people don’t think it’s good to hand the power of the U.S. President to someone with the maturity and impulse control of a 12-year-old boy.

    You’re repeating the MSM/DNC cliché whose sole grain of truth is Trump’s expansive folksy style. You want to talk about presidents with a pubescent’s impulse control — you have bill clinton. You want to talk about a seethingly resentful nullity, you have obama. You want to talk about a senilescent sociopath, you have hillary.

    GWB was a horror but the scintilla of his legacy’s rehabilitation comes from new information about his efforts to rein in the neocons’ appetite for attacking Syria and Iran.

  13. “…everybody and their mother irl gives Beethoven’s slot to Bach.”

    It boils down to who you’d rather hear live. Though I prefer Scarlatti and Handel’s actual compositions, if presented with a stand-in chance to hear the third leg of that imposing trio frisking a harpsichord onstage – I’d prefer it. It would be like choosing a thorough first-hand lesson seaside with Plato rather than bullshitting-sessions with Socrates at various indoor feasts.

  14. You’re repeating the MSM/DNC cliché whose sole grain of truth is Trump’s expansive folksy style.

    Thanks for this! Distilled my sentiments right on the nose.

  15. It’s hard to parse “instinct” from “conditioned response” today, PA.

    I don’t think it matters much. Most will not spend the time to unwind or question their early teachings, as many WNs have. And to act upon genuine disgust takes something special; percieving it is not enough.

    You’ve got too much boy scout in you, PA. You’re looking for someone to clean things up without taking down any innocents too. Impossible to do; not even the Americans with all their $$$ and technology can do it. You’re denying that the man who can actually change things today makes Hitler look like a saint.

    Nature tells me that if someone has a gun pointed at their head, their opinions change real fast. And if you put a pile of money in their hand, it changes even faster. That’s the morality I believe in. All WNs know this well, because the USG has that gun pointed at our heads.

  16. Circling back to our discussion of gut-level disgust: was that woman’s vitriol toward a harmless and faraway group of Southron Christians an example of an innate “weak stomach” prejudice against contamination?

    Yes, liberals on social media rail against the “wrong kind” of whites endlessly, but these are people with whom they never cross paths. But of course, liberals can explain away images like Michael Brown’s store robbery photos very easily:

  17. An alt-riter can spot a black-eyed, gaunt face rocker-ragged “white” teenage female with daddy issues every time.

    But…

    Put a pant-suited, quasi-granny with a bad Bee Gees/Dutch boy hybrid hairdo in front of him and “daddy issue” is as invisible as de facto dyke’s femininity.

  18. You’re right – it’s nothing to do with disgust. It’s simply the inability of dumb, ungracious, pliable White bishes. They didn’t used to vote for a reason: They are easy prey for ridiculous hyped-up MSM Narratives that are not based in reality. Heartiste was right when he said men are the realiy- talking sex. This witch shows why hysterical sheepwomen should have one job: look pretty. Everything else thy do is a liability for society.

  19. The nature of the psych-ops is an anti-white Supremacy LIBERALLY CONCEIVED and “black”-centric for the purpose of rendering the objective Supremacy of the white man’s God “dead” in his own mind.

  20. Not all women are histrionic liberals. Heather MacDonald has been quietly deconstructing the Black Lives Matter narrative using actual facts and rational arguments.

    I highly recommend her Bloggingheads discussion with Glenn Loury. Loury is the antithesis of Ta-Nehisi Coates, but he does his best to play devil’s advocate to MacDonald. She calmly destroys every one of his arguments.

    http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/42926

    This is great too, one among many of her pieces about policing.
    http://www.city-journal.org/html/why-milwaukee-burns-14689.html

  21. “it’s nothing to do with disgust. It’s simply the inability of dumb, ungracious, pliable White bishes. They didn’t used to vote for a reason: They are easy prey for ridiculous hyped-up MSM Narratives that are not based in reality. Heartiste was right when he said men are the realiy- talking sex.”

    And they don’t have to be all three of those things. One is probably enough.

    On another note, as the level of culture has come up as a topic on this thread — crediting CH with a common-sense observation, and quoted above, made by literally millions of men in conversation and writing and everywhere in between, is reflective of the alt-right’s own level of culture (and not well).

    But that gripe aside, i agree with the sentiment in quotations.

    PA’s original idea is a good one. That people with a lower threshold for disgust, are more inclined toward good things, which now especially includes living among one’s own people.

    It can be conceded however, that how good a thing that is — to live among one’s own people — is, as a variable, not a constant.

    Sometimes it is NOT the best thing. When one’s people are very sick, for instance — perhaps then, it is better to live among others.

    But now, what choice do white people have. We are not offered many choices. None, in fact. Actually though that is not true. We are offered the choice of living in the Third World and being the great white saviors (we all strive to be) — but that never works out. It is such a stupid idea, that the fact that so many white people fall for — believe in it — says something.

    I am going off the original topic, but think how long whites romanticized living with the Indians. Back in the day, a lot of them did it, and many were “happy” with their decision.

  22. In my comment above is a seeming contradiction.

    I agree that PA’s original idea is a good one; but that the quotation from a poster, smug ponce, directly disagrees that the original idea is right.

    I don’t find it necessary to offer a resolution there. The ideas that women express are often not their own; and further it’s likely that a Disgust Threshold is in females less an active psychological factor (than in males), due to their biology.

    *********************

    The criticism of Sailer was pretty funny but on the other hand every one has his strengths and weaknesses. Plenty of people are not familiar with classical music, and therefore that question to them is not matter of taste, but one of pop culture.

  23. My response to Lucius Somesuch’ comment criticizing Sailer for his “culture-vulturism” misses his point, in the sense that Sailer is criticized not for lack of taste, but explicitly for his lack of knowledge of high culture such as classical music.

    Just wanted to acknowledge that; but would raise this point:

    In this day and age, it is near impossible to be both abreast in high culture and fluent in the contemporary. How they are opposed and how they are compatible, would be an interesting question, for someone who is up for it.

    How relevant is high culture to a person in this day and age?

    **************

    Sailer has a review up on the new movie starring every alt-righter’s favorite no-good-looks lead, Johah Goldbergstein, uhrr uh, Jonah Hill, in War Dogs.

    The topic, how jews are portrayed in the movies, is always suspect.

    They will be heroicized in this current movie. Heroic in a modern sense of success stories, by whatever means: in their case apex hustlers.

    Apparently America is ready to love its jewish heroes. That can’t be good!

  24. High culture needs a high-culture society. Without that society it is a liability, for an individual to spend his time on it.

    Obviously alt-righters are lofty minded, and can with ease justify the need for it. Plato’s Republic might be a good place to start, or Wagner’s music; or do those choices reveal my ignorance.

    However; an alternative to high culture that is not crap, and for which the case can be made is more adaptive to the (current) needs of alt-righters, is folk culture.

  25. Handle, it would be a pleasure to meet you, Vladimir, and a number of others in this sphere but that’s out of my comfort zone in terms of anonymity.

    That is entirely understandable and prudent – especially these days – and while I’m somewhat disappointed as a long-time admirer of your commentary, I respect your position.

    Still, if it isn’t too imposing, insistent, or impertinent, I would like to invite you to a private online forum where Vladimir and I hang out with a few other old hands from around these parts. Email me if you’re interested.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s