Skip to main content

When Liberals Attack or What Happens When Men Are Supposed To Be Girls

Okay, first of all, it's a tiny sub-set of liberals. Still, when they do attack, it causes a cognative dissonance that makes us really notice.

Recently there was an incident, perhaps you heard about it, where a young man (Stone) searched out another young man he'd never personally met (Reed Pannell) to orchestrate a confrontation. Follow these links for details.

This is my explanation.

Personally I think it's a reaction to modern (and liberal) ideas of manhood completely unrelated to any specific political issue. Firstly, men aren't supposed to be manly anymore. They're supposed to be like girls but with man-parts. Some people reject that balony but others, generally of the progressive and liberal feminist sort rather than the conservative and neanderthal sort, accept the view that all the man-things are bad... competitive, confrontational, physical, stuff is bad. Womanly virtues, conversation and connection, are good.

(The cultural reaction to that is the soaring popularity of fight shows, martial arts schools, and some awesomely funny local radio commercials for Giant gas and convienience stores.)

Okay, so what counts for a 6 foot plus guy physically assaulting a 5 foot nothing female ROTC student or this fellow Stone who takes the time to find someone, goes to his house, and begins a physical confrontation? If you asked either of them, would they identify with the sort of hick who watches NASCAR, buys beer at a Giant gas station, and views bar fights as a great night out?

Fighting for fun isn't progressive. It's not civilized. I don't understand it, but guys seem to like to fight for fun. It's all external posturing, chest pounding, and a contest to see who the big dog is, but fun. But in order to be with their group liberal men have to reject that sort of primative BS.

But what if they have a cause? An excuse? Look at Stone. Follow the links. The guy expressed incredible violence. Why was that okay in his mind if war, if the military, is bad?

Partly it's because the human ability to be violent is denied. Something denied isn't and can't be under control. Partly it's identification with the group over the individual. Ones own actions aren't an issue for identity so the fact that he's a violent fruitcake doesn't impact the virtue of his group membership.

Why do "peace" protestors vandalize recruiting offices? Why do "liberal" students shut down the speech of others and prevent access to other students. Why would a college teacher in Colorado kick someone in the leg because he expressed different politics than she liked?

So two things. Group membership identity trumping responsibility for one's own behavior, and denying, therefore not dealing with, human nature.

(BTW, men being like women is bad because women don't fight for fun. We're freaking scary, scorched earth neverforgotten vindictive. It comes with physical vulnerability. Our solutions have to be final.)

(And because I'm sure I have to actually say it... all gender stereotypes I've expressed are proved in the exception... of course.)


Anonymous said…
Great post, You describe a lot of the problems that I have witnessed myself, quite eloquently.
Ymarsakar said…
Fighting for fun isn't progressive. It's not civilized. I don't understand it, but guys seem to like to fight for fun.
I've always seen and felt it as a kind of spiritualism, ritual, meditation, wisdom, and a feeling of power.

There are different kinds of fights, after all. There are duels, via the Code Duello, because one side or the other felt that an injustice was committed against him to such a degree that they are enraged into wanting a fight to put the matter to rest. Worthwhile values are those that people kill and die for, although such values may be ethically good or ethically evil (Jihad). But, they are still worthwhile, to somebody.

Jimbo over at B5 put up a post a few weeks ago about all the fights at bars that he saw people get into. It is fun reading them because it is like sports. You view the violence, yet you are at peace, meditating. Zen? Perhaps.

It really isn't civilized, since it is a contest of strength, of wits, of creativity, and of various other mental and physical skillsets. And it is power. The feeling of power that can only come from knowing that you hold a person's life in your hands. The feeling that arises when a person knows without doubt that he is the one that decides the fate of others and of himself, that no one may dictate or override his will or his fate. It is accomplishment, the ability to succede in your goals and to crush your enemies. It is power. Much as civilization has tried to shape and control such... power is still a rather barbaric practice, regardless of civilization's refinements. That is why I describe it in its natural and animalistic climate.

Combined with high levels of adrenaline and endorphines, a person can feel his most alive during a fight, regardless of the kind of fight he was in. Combine such a hormonal mix with power, the sense of destroying obstacles physically before you, and you have many of the stimuli that men have evolved with.

And of course, fights expell tensions and emotions. Instead of talking about it, men have competitions, seeking to master such things instead of cooperating or talking as women may or may not prioritize. Like a volleyball game or any kind of physical activity, it can be fun, and it can be the cure for stress as well. For things that do not get better with more talking that is.

The Left engages in probably the most destructive kind of fights. Fights with themselves. It just manifests as violence towards others, but what they truly hate and want to destroy/hurt is themselves. Because their self-survival reflexes always repress such desires, they lash out at others. They are not in control of themselves, Synova. They never were.

And that brings me back to the point of power and mastery. I will try to connect it with the things I said in the beginning. Suppose Martial arts is a ritual, a ritual of purification, mental, physical, spiritual. Thus spiritualism can be said to be of mastering one's own mental and physical processes. Men get into fights, if only to prove that they can fight, either well or badly, and that they can control themselves in a fight. They learn in the doing. Body knowledge. To seek inspiration and enlightenment through the doing.

I think it differs with the age as well. Young men are foolish, reckless, and prone to emotional outbursts. Fighting is impressive, a mark of status if done well for them, and many role models are there for such, including Bruce Lee (movie, not philosophical incarnation) or the average street thug. But as people get older, they eventually have to decide what they are going to use their power for. To terrorize the weak? To benefit selfishly? Or to protect their loved ones and those that cannot protect themselves?

I had an anger problem before. If only because it felt like a living entity, that fed off my thoughts. And if I keep thinking about that which made me mad, whether of injustice or something else akin to helplessness, it started to grow. And at certain times in the past, it had grown to the level where only physical pain could sooth the savage beast within. And I mean that as it is written. It is an interesting realization that there exists a capability to be so enraged, that the very sanity starts being corroded, allowing only physical pain to cool the mind and bring rationality back. Therein was the secret. Controlling anger is impossible without letting it an outlet. Because in a certain sense for me, it was two moral philosophies fighting each other inside myself. One was the modern Left saying that you should not feel angry, since anger leads to the Dark Si... ah, I mean it leads to violence and violence is bad. But the other side of me, a sort of innate goodness or somesuch, felt that injustices deserved anger and hate, whether that of injustice done to me or to others. One side of me wanted to feel more angry, the other side wanted to repress it all and viewed being angry as morally bad. I suppose for every fight with an external foe, it is mirrored with a fight internally (GitMo, Geneva, ACLU). Or this saying.

Whatever damage you inflict on me, I will return to you a thousand fold. That's a lot easier and less ambiguous than the teachings of the Left, at least for me. The Left has never been unified in their internal matters, spiritual or otherwise. Thus their inconsistency and dual-personas viewed externally, are simply a reflection of their mirror like internal torment.

I always had more self-control than my peers. So I can understand why some folks on the Left wish to seek out others to pound upon. If you can't control the inner beast, then you cannot repress it either once awakened. And once awakened, it starts to eat you out from the inside. Slowly, but surely. The destructive power of rage and hate, is very painful when directed against nobody but yourself. So... find a target. Some people are better at finding deserving targets than others.

It also brings to mind peace as well. That particular goal. The peace of mind, of heart, and of body. Cold anger, was the trick. Never heard about it before until then, always before I had heard that you were supposed to repress anger, according to civilization's rules and dictates. And that worked, to a certain extent, societal rules did control my outward behavior. But that never really solved the inner turmoil. Which was, if you feel angry and you think the only way to deal with it is by repression, just how long is that going to take before something gives?

Icy fury. The ability to obtain the strength, endurance, and pain threshold raising benefits of rage, without sacrificing the loss of sanity and rationality. A great challenge, a worthy challenge. (In Star Wars terms, to make fun of G Lucas, it would be synthesizing and hybridizing the Light and Dark powers)

So there we go. The wisdom to know what to do with power if you have it, who to fight, and when to fight them. The peace achieved through meditation and harmony. Goals that are spiritual in origin. All of that combined with the power achieved through struggle. But in a sense, it is not power over others, but power over yourself.

Btw, Synova, do you remember that incident on Fox News a few months ago about two girls setting up a "date" to fight it out over a boy to "settle" things? Someone in the crowd video tapped it, and that caused the media attention. I found it a curious insight into tribal customs. Where physical prowess/fighting was usually used to solve disputes, interposed upon a modern civilization such as the US. Children are more primordial than adults. This is what their instincts say to do, in the absence of wisdom and experience. Which kind of describes the Left for some reason...

Children know in a way without having to be told, that they are in a heirarchy, that if they fight and win, it solves disputes within the heirarchy (pack). Sheep don't do that though, not on an individual level. And it is a weird hybrid, because while children go by their instincts to "fight" over whatever, they do it with civilization's rules!! Meaning, they don't go all out. They don't even go half of the way out. And they are not taught how to do so, how to defend themselves, or what to do if say a girl was being kicked on the ground in front of a camera. I find that a weird juxtaposition of the anachronistic and modern.
Ymarsakar said…
I strongly recommend this post, Synova.


Why? Because the material there gives a good answer to your questions of "why" does the Left do the things they do. Surely because they are uncontrolled, barbaric, undisciplined freaks, that is my answer, but he has a different answer. And far more indepth as well!

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.


It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism,

What You Know That Isn't So

  The saying goes like this, It's not what you *don't* know that is going to trip you up, it's what you know that isn't so. I believe that the first lady might possibly have been feigning helplessness, just a little bit.  She already had concept art and visuals, so I think she'll be okay.   But someone might truly be so new that they know nothing about science fiction as a genre or how it works in the world.  That person, the truly "new" person, might not realize that the second lady, no matter how assured she seems to be that she's passing on vital Wisdom, is wrong. So lets unwrap her backpack a little (to steal a metaphor). Stories about space pirates are Space Opera, generally.  "Soft" science in science fiction usually refers to sociology or psychology, social "science".  A story about space pirates might be "soft".  But that's picking nits.  The first big boo-boo is this: "not as popular *because* it is women