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.