Cosas tan obvias que me da miedo decirlas

Summary of previous installments

In previous installments, we have seen that the the ideology/religion of liberalism (the religion of freedom, equality and rights, which is a form of relativism) is the ultimate justification of behavior and public policy in Western civilization and it is an ideology that can be used to justify anything. So it is as if it did not exist. It is a rhetorical ploy.

Its void is filled by another official ideology: leftism, which is the base of the law and culture in Western civilization. Leftism is an absolutist ideology with absolute goods (feminism, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.) and absolute evils (patriarchy, white supremacism, sexism, racism, homophobia) and it is justified because of liberalism, because liberalism can justify anything..

In this absolutist sense, leftism is not different from any other official religion. But there are several properties that make Leftism unique between the official religions of societies:

Property A. Its restlessness. Leftism is always evolving and incorporating new absolute goods and evils in a process that has been accelerating. Some things that were common sense only five or ten years ago, now they are the evilest of evil things and they cannot be disputed.

Property B. Its direction. Leftism does not evolve in random directions but getting farther and farther away from obvious reality and natural law.  Leftism is a reality inversion and a moral inversion, which constantly increases.

Property C. Its popularity. As we will see, Leftism is a religion whose goals are enslavement, impoverishment and mental health decline of the vast majority of the population. However, it is  very popular among the majority of the population.

This text will try to explain property A and C while the next installment will try to explain property B and deepen the understanding of property A.

Evolution of modern society

The evolution of leftism is clear if we see it from a non-ideological perspective. Modern society always evolves in a direction where more and more good things are taken from the general population and good things are transferred to the powerful and to the people that support leftism.

These «good things» are money, power and psychological well-being. We will call them «benefits». So this change means the impoverishment, enslavement and mental health decline of the general population. We will call this «the disempowerment of the population».

It is tempting to see this change as a transfer of benefits but this would be inaccurate. The good things taken from the population are bigger and different than the good things given to the powerful and the people that support leftism.

For example, let’s suppose a bank reduces the number of their offices by forcing people to do most transactions online (true story). The good things taken from the population are: people without computer skills find their lives a bit harder, many employees lose their jobs, their families are destroyed or have a difficult life because of economic hardships, the communities where these families live are impoverished, etc.

The good things given to the powerful is that the owner of the bank has more amount of money that he doesn’t need and he can’t spend in a thousand lives. But now, he is the number 51 in the Forbes list of wealthy people (instead of number 47). In addition, this excess of money can help this guy to play God and try to implement a «better world» according to his half-baked ideas that create more chaos, but nobody tells him they are asinine because he has so much money.

So you have destruction of many lives compared to the vanity of a guy with too much money. Both are good things but not equivalent. This change is only possible because the rulers have the power and the people being dispossessed have no power to protect from this predation.

The class structure of modern society

More specifically, Western society is composed by three social classes:

• The rulers. Financial powers like the Rothschild, the Rockefellers, and others. They rule in the shadow and are often hidden behind all kinds of non-profit and profit organizations (Bank of International Settlements, Blackrock, etc). The rulers decide the direction towards society should go.
• The managers. This includes the intellectuals that create the ideas in universities. The journalists, teachers, professors and entertainers that transmit these ideas to the people. And the politicians, civil servants and white collars employees that enforce these in ideas in the public space and private companies.

Since «the Managerial Revolution» by James Burnham, it has been often claimed that the managers have replaced the wealthy people as a ruling class. I will believe it when I see the managers take decisions or define policies that go against the rulers. This was done in Communist countries, which were really managerial, but in our Capitalist system, financial powers rule and managers are only their assistants. The same way the clergy was assistant of the power during the Middle Ages.

This does not mean that managers are without powers. In fact, the upper layer of managers (say, the high officers in international institutions) have some power about how to implement the direction set by the rulers in society. The lower layer of managers have power how to transmit and enforce the directives of the managers in their companies, school, etc. Since the rulers are hidden, the population thinks that the managers (politicians, international organization) are the ones that rule societies.

The rulers and the managers are «the structure of power» in Western society.

• The serfs. The ones that have no power about the direction of the society. An immigrant, a trucker driver, the owner of a small business, etc. They can be divided into good serfs (if they support leftism) and bad serfs (if they don’t support leftism)

We will call the managers and the good serfs as «the clients» (in a Roman sense). They are the ones that support the enslavement, impoverishment and mental health decline of the population through its support of leftism.

Leftism evolves to take more and more benefits (money, power and psychological benefits) from the population and to give more benefits to the rulers and (sometimes) to the clients.

In this exchange, the rulers are the main beneficiaries but the upper layer of the clients can also be benefitted if the benefits they receive is bigger than the benefits they give. For example, a high level officer of the European Commission receives more benefits (salary, status, power) that he gives (say, through taxes).

A feminist school teacher (the lower layer of the managers) receives less benefits (virtue signaling, moral justification) that she gives (taxes, loneliness because of feminism), but she doesn’t realize that leftism is the cause of her disempowerment (she attributes loneliness to patriarchy) so she supports leftism because of the benefits she perceives (virtue signaling, moral justification).

Leftism as a justification of the power grab

So each novelty in modern society can be explained as  taking benefits from the population to give benefits to the rulers and (sometimes) the clients. Leftism is only the ideology to justify this process.

For example, both massive immigration and the incorporation of woman to the workplace disempowered the population by reducing wages, increasing taxes, making people more unhappy and more dependent from the State, while increasing wealth, power and meaning for the rulers and the upper layer of the managers.

This disempowerment had to be justified so «feminism» and «multiculturalism» were created as a new «gods» or dogmas of the religion of leftism. From a logical point of view, importing masses of people from very patriarchal societies contradicts feminism, but the hidden logic is that both movements benefit the rulers and the upper layer of the managers. Leftism is an ideology to rationalize parasitism of these classes with respect to the general population.

The rulers of traditional societies could not do that so easily because the religion was established. Henry II could not define «the murdering of bishops such as Beckett» as a good thing, because he could not change the religion. But leftism has liberalism as a ultimate justification and, as we saw, liberalism can be used to justify anything (in this case, the alibi is «to increase the rights of women and poor foreigners»)  . So the powerful define the religion as they see fit and have no restriction in their behavior. The powerful control the religion instead of being restricted by it.

This explains the restlessness of leftism. Liberalism allows leftism to be always changing, because it can justify anything (unlike the dogmas of traditional societies). However, it does not force leftism to be always changing. If leftism is always changing is because the rulers benefit from each novelty and the rulers have the power to implement it. Each leftist novelty such as feminism, LGBTI or multiculturalism has ended up increasing the benefit of the rulers, of the powerful. The fact that it disempowers the population is a byproduct.

How people accept their own disempowerment

How do normal people accept and even promote leftism, which justifies their own disempowerment? There are multiple mechanisms.

The first mechanism is that the disempowerment is sold as an expansion of rights. Since each right is someone else’s obligations (again, the relativism of liberalism), new obligations are introduced into the population while claiming they are rights and concealing the obligations attached.

For example, rights of illegal immigrants to be given healthcare imply the obligation of everybody else to pay for this healthcare through taxes. By claiming «rights» are introduced, the impoverishment and enslavement of the population are concealed. Only the bright side is presented in a constant propaganda campaign. It is again a fallacy of omission («stacking the deck» fallacy).

The second mechanism consists in the rationalization of the disempowerment. When divorce and abortion were introduced in Spain, there were told that these were going to be very special cases for dramatic situations and there wouldn’t be masses of people divorcing or aborting ( “safe, legal, and rare”, as Bill Clinton would said). After this happened, divorce and abortion were redefined from «necessary evils» to «highest goods and rights».  So now families broken and children killed are rationalized saying that these are good things because, for example, women have the right not to be trapped in an unhappy marriage and own their body.

The third mechanism is that leftism blames all its failures to other people and to insufficient leftism. So, when people get impoverished because leftism, «the right» is to blame and the solution is more leftism. For example, when feminism fails, the answer is that feminism has not been sufficiently implemented (because of the evil «patriarchy») and the solution is more feminism.

A special case of this third mechanism is that leftism takes its victims and makes them soldiers. An example is the liberated woman who followed very well all the rules of feminism and, hence, ended up lonely and childless at her forties. This woman is hurting and admitting that she has committed mistakes that cannot be undone only adds to her misery. So her mind tries to rationalize these situations and leftism provides the perfect alibi: she has not married because men are sexist and only want a submissive slave instead of a strong independent woman like her. So she has to fight against the patriarchy by promoting feminism. This gives her meaning and something to live for. And it is a perfect excuse to try to convince young women to follow the same path she followed: «Misery wants company».

So each victim of leftism is converted into a fighter for leftism. Leftism feeds of its own failures: destroys lives of people and uses them to destroy more lives of people in a vicious circle that destroys society, like a cancer growing in a body.

Something to be explained

We have said that leftism evolves in direction towards more benefits for the rulers and (sometimes) for the clients. But why does this direction coincide with the direction consisting in getting farther and farther away from obvious reality and the natural law?

This requires a more detailed examination of the mechanism of leftism, which will be done in the next installment.

—–

If leftism is free to wander, we should expect that it wanders in random ways. There must be some mechanism for it to always go left. Explaining this mechanism is the objetive of this post.

Spiritual reality. Satan works with secondary causes so it does not reveal its existence.

We are interested in these secondary causes.

Why did the West go to Hell by Virapala

[Why did the West go to Hell attempts to be a logical and historical explanation of the genesis of today’s Absurdistan: a world where you are evil if you say that pigs cannot fly. You can contact the author on virapala.merdeta.com]

Part I.b.: The two religions

Introduction

We saw in the previous installment that the modern Western civilization is founded on a relativistic religion. This ideology is:

• relativistic in theory with respect to the truth and morality, which are claimed to be relative (different for each person).
• relativistic in practice because it uses concepts like freedom, equality and rights. These concepts are claimed to be absolute (the same for each person) but they are relative, because the freedom/equality/right of a person is, in reality, the lack of freedom/equality/right of another person.

We have seen that the relativism of Western civilization causes societal problems like anarchy, tyranny and atomized societies. For a better explanation, please read the previous installment.

However, the main problem of the relativism in Western civilization is the one will be explained in next.

Political systems cannot be based on relativism

The main problem of relativism is that it is impossible to implement in a society.

It is well known that the different relativistic concepts contradict each other.  As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: «Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free».

But there is something deeper than that. Each relativistic concept contradicts itself. Relativism is impossible to scale.

Every man can adopt relativism in an individual manner (and, as we saw, this produces conflict, which causes anarchy, tyranny and atomized societies). But it is impossible to apply relativism in a collective manner.

To be more specific, it is impossible for a political system to be based on relativism.

This is because each political system is based on laws. The law should allow some things and forbid other things. Which things should the law allow or forbid? It should allow things that are considered good and forbid things that are considered evil. Therefore, it needs a concept of good and evil that is publicly shared by the elite and authorities and, even better, by the entire population (even if they don’t feel this way in private, see Timur Kuran’s Private Truths, Public Lies).

This concept of the good and the evil upon which the law is based is the official ideology of the society, that is, its official religion, because we define religion as a moral system that distinguishes good from evil. In this sense, every country is a theocracy.

(Some of you will object to my use of the R word but, please, bear with me. This will be explained in another text and let’s not quarrel about names. If you have problems with this word, please replace it with moralistic ideology).

This official religion cannot be relativistic in theory (if there is no absolute truth and no absolute good, there is no reason to have laws that allow and forbid behaviors).

This official religion cannot be relativistic in practice either. For example the law cannot be founded on «freedom». It is common for politicians to say: «Our political system is founded on freedom», as if the relative concept of freedom was an absolute concept (the same for everybody). But there is no such thing as a political system founded on freedom because the freedom of somebody is the lack of freedom of somebody else.

My freedom to have private property is the lack of freedom of everybody else to use my property without my consent. Capitalist countries will allow the first freedom and will forbid the second one. Communist countries will do the opposite (in theory). But you cannot allow both freedoms at once. So there is not a political system based on freedom, the same way you cannot have a coin with one side.

In short, a political system  cannot be founded on relativist concepts, because the law is absolutist and not relativistic.

But we have said that the Western civilization is based on a relativistic ideology. So how is this possible? Are we contradicting ourselves?

The paradox of Western civilization

It is possible because relativism is the theoretical official religion of the Western civilization  but it is never put into practice in the political systems of this civilization. It is only used by the powers that be in a rhetorical, official and theoretical way  (in speeches, official documents  and,  more importantly, as a way of justifying policies and laws). But, as explained above, it cannot be applied in practice so it is not applied.

For example, in theory, all people in Western countries are free, equal and have the same rights. This statement is completely relativistic and completely theoretical.

But, in practice, some people are freer than others, some people are more equal than others and some people have more rights than others. So, for example, in a divorce, the person who wants out of the marriage has freedom and rights to divorce, but, the person who wants to remain in the marriage and his kids have no freedom or rights at all.  In an abortion, the woman is free to kill her child (it is her right) while the man and the fetus have no freedom or rights and nothing to say. And so on and so forth.

As we have seen, it would be impossible for a society to be based on freedom, because the freedom of a person is the lack of freedom of another person (the freedom to divorce of a woman is the lack of freedom of a man to see how their kids grow). So in the Western civilization, like in any other countries, some freedoms are guaranteed while other freedoms are restricted.  In a Muslim country, the woman has no freedom to divorce but the man has the freedom to see his kids grow. The late blogger Zippy Catholic used to hammer this point home once and again (we miss you, Mark).

Muslim countries don’t have less freedoms than Western countries. They have different freedoms. However, Muslim countries are coherent because they don’t claim to be based on freedom while Western countries do.

In short. relativisim is not workable and is completely absurd. It cannot be put into practice in a society.

Therefore, in fact, Western civilization has two official religions:

1. A relativistic religion in theory, for rhetorical uses. I will call this «liberalism». Its relative concepts (liberty, equality and rights) are presented as if they were absolute concepts and they are claimed to be the foundation of the society.

Of course, this is only a rhetorical trick (for speeches and, more importantly, to justify policies and laws). Relativism cannot be put into practice so liberalism is only a rhetorical ploy.

Liberalism is a very simple ideology (it only consists of some few words: liberty, equality, progress, rights, etc.) and has not substantially changed for the last 200 years.

2. There is a real official religion, which is codified in the laws and it is the base of public discourse and policies. I will call it «leftism».

This is an absolute religion with absolute goods and evils. For example, absolute evils are racism, sexism, homophobia, white nationalism. Absolute goods are the legalization of divorce and abortion, secularization, uncontrolled immigration, etc. These are absolute concepts and must be enforced as absolute by the law, the government and society in general.

Leftism is constantly changing and incorporating new absolute goods and evils (transphobia is the latest evil so far, but it won’t be the last).

Go to a workplace and say that you don’t think the new LGBTI program is a good idea, because everybody should have their opinion and freedom of thought, and you will see how long liberalism (relativism) goes (I did this and I was fired). You will see what the ideology being enforced in society is leftism, not liberalism.

Liberalism is only a rhetorical ploy to justify leftism.  It took me a lot to see this distinction and this article by Bonald was useful so I decided to use his terminology.

That article explains how both religions are used to justify leftism, for example, in a debate of  gay marriage. You attack the ideas of ideologies other than leftism by using liberalism («Christian marriage is a cultural construct that does not allow freedom and equality to gay couples. Live and let live») and you defend your own ideas by using leftism («You should bake the cake for a gay wedding, you bigot, you homophobe»). There is no freedom or live and let live for this last case.

In short, your ideas are relative (liberalism), my ideas are absolute (leftism). It is «relativism for thee but not for me»., which is a phenomenon constantly seen in the history of relativism, since its introduction in the Western civilization in the 16th century.

In short, Western civilization is based on what I call «a false relativism». Relativism (liberalism) is used in a rhetorical way as if it were the foundation of  society but  society is based on leftism, on an absolutist religion (like any other society is because it is impossible to do it another way).

How other societies work with ultimate justification

If Western society is really based on an absolutist ideology like other societies, why is so harmful that it uses relativism in a rhetorical function?

The problem is that relativism is used as an ultimate justification of changes in the culture and in the law. And relativism can justify anything, no matter how insane it is.

If we start asking: «Why is A true/false?», this will have an answer along the lines of «A is true/false because it is derived from B, which is true/false». Then we can repeat the question with B: «Why is B true/false». This will produce a C being true/false. We cannot go on infinitely with this chain of justification. This chain stops with Z being true/false, full stop. Z is an ultimate justification and we can call it «a reality dogma».

This is regarding the IS part of Hume’s IS-OUGHT  distinction. But it is the same about the OUGHT part. That is, morality works the same way. If we start asking: «Why is A good/evil?», this will have an answer along the lines of «A is good/evil because it produces B, which is good/evil». Then we can repeat the question with B: «Why is B good/evil». This will produce a C being good/evil. We cannot go on infinitely with this chain of justification. This chain stops with Z being good/evil, full stop. Z is an ultimate justification and we can call it «a morality dogma».

All civilizations have dogmas, which are the foundation of the civilization. In ancient societies, dogmas were collected in holy traditions or holy texts such as the Bible, the Qur’an or the Talmud, which were used as the ultimate justification in these other societies. Each chain of justification ended with «the Bible/Qur’an/Talmud says it so».

However, these holy texts are extensions of obvious reality («men are women are different») and of the natural law («don’t steal»), that is, the universal moral law that all sane societies follow, because it is biologically wired in humans and it is the only way to organize a society.  The natural law has dogmas like «don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder, respect your neighbor’s wife, etc.».

All traditional holy texts include the dogmas of obvious reality («men are women are different») and the natural law («don’t steal») with some exceptions. They also include some other dogmas in addition («the Trinity», «the obligation to pray», «Mohammed being the last prophet»). So the traditional holy texts can be seen as extensions of obvious reality and the natural law. See the appendix of The Abolition of Men by C.S.Lewis to see how all civilizations agree on the dogmas of the natural law (called «the Tao» by C.S.Lewis).

(The mechanism that makes all the holy texts to agree on obvious reality and the natural law is that societies that are not based on the natural law don’t survive long term , because the natural law is the minimum set of rules needed for a society to function, so the holy traditions of these societies die with them. This will be explored in another text)

Having the dogmas of a society derived from holy texts has as a benefit that its culture is not completely free. The culture is constantly changing but it does not get very far away from the dogmas of the holy texts, so it does not get very far away from obvious reality and the natural law. I imagine these cultures as a dog tied to a stick with a chain. The stick is obvious reality and the natural law. The dog (the culture) can move somewhat but he is not completely free, he must be somewhat close to the stick, even if the chain is long.

This seems outrageous to modern Western people, raised in a diet of false rationalism. How can you limit your freedom of thought? You should be able to question anything! Follow your reason when it leads you!.

In fact, human reason (aided by convincing fallacies and social pressure) can justify absolutely anything, The modern West is a society that prides itself in its rationalism and it has rationally justified that a man is a woman (see «the social construction of gender» and other sophistries).

The dogmas of the holy texts mean that ancient cultures are protected from insanity. They cannot say that there are 26 genders because «God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27). Or, if you are a Muslim, «O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women.» (Qur’an 4:1)

How the modern West works with ultimate justification

As we have said, the modern West has leftism as his real religion, but liberalism is his ultimate justification. Unlike ancient societies, whose dogmas were written in long texts, the dogmas of the modern West are surprisingly short: they are limited to a series of relativistic liberal concepts: freedom, equality, rights, and progress (with an additional implicit concept: tabula rasa or blank slate).  In the modern West, these concepts of liberalism play the same role than the Bible, the Qur’an or the Talmud in other societies, which are used as the ultimate justification in these societies.

Every ultimate justification of the leftist religion in Western society is done starting from liberalism (which is the rhetorical religion) and not from leftism (which is the real religion). So why is homophobia evil? Because it goes against the freedom, equality and rights of homosexual people. Why is secularization good? Because it goes in favor of the freedom and equality of people of non-Christian religions, and so on and so forth.

So why is having liberalism as justification so bad? And how it is possible than an absolutist ideology (leftism) is justified starting from a relativistic ideology (liberalism), when this is logically impossible?

It is bad because the dogmas of Western civilization (freedom, equality, rights) are completely relativistic. When applied to the collective, they are false dogmas that don’t mean anything. They are words to conceal the fact that the Western civilization has no dogmas at all. This means that this civilization is a free dog, with no chain. The civilization can move in any direction and there is no limit to the insanity it can accept.

Any direction the Western civilization moves can be justified as a new right, freedom or equality. Do we want to legalize divorce? We can say we are protecting the rights and freedoms of people unhappy in their marriage. Do we want to forbid divorce? We can say we are protecting the rights and freedoms of kids to have a stable family.

Do we want to enforce the identification of trannies as women? We can say we are protecting the rights of people trapped in the wrong body or are wanting the equality of these «women» with other women. Do we want to forbid identification of trannies as a women? We want to protect the rights of women to have private spaces (like restrooms) or the equality of women to have the same reward as men with the same effort in sports.

The sacred relativistic concepts (freedom, equality, rights) of our civilization are able to justify ANYTHING, no matter what. These are no dogmas when applied to collective but a series of empty words than don’t mean anything. They can justify anything and its opposite.

That is, there is no insanity big enough that cannot be justified by using relativistic concepts. And this is why our society has reached these levels of insanity: liberalism (relativism) as an ultimate justification allows it, while other societies are restricted by their holy texts, their absolute religions based on the natural law.

Liberalism for me but not for thee

But this produces another question. If liberalism can justify anything, why is it only used to justify leftism? Why isn’t liberalism used to justify the freedom of people not to bake a cake for a so-called «gay marriage»? Or the rights of kids to have a stable family?

More specifically, the fact that the relativistic liberalism allows insanity does not mean that it forces insanity. If liberalism concepts mean nothing, if liberal concepts give freedom to the society (to the dog) to go in any direction (because they are relativistic), we would expect for the Western society to go in random directions, but the direction is always the same: towards insanity and towards the opposite direction of obvious reality and the natural law.

In fact, if we speak accurately, liberalism is not properly an ultimate justification of leftism. It is an ultimate rationalization.

Leftism has its own dynamics and evolves in an completely independent way from liberalism. It has mechanisms in place that make leftism evolve in one direction. As Mencius Moldbug said “Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn’t that interesting?”

Once leftism has produced a cultural change because its own internal dynamics, liberalism is called to justify it, to rationalize it. A liberal justification is created which justifies the novelty as derived from the freedom/equality/right of someone (let’s say the freedom and right to be called by your favorite pronouns). The fact that the freedom/equality/rights of other people is restricted is completely omitted (the freedom/right of everybody to free expression).

That is, leftism is rationalized starting from liberalism using a fallacy of omission («stack the deck» fallacy). This is the only way to derive an absolute ideology (leftism) from a relativistic ideology (liberalism).

In other words, it is liberalism for me but not for thee. Relativism is never applied in a complete manner. It is applied in a partial way that justifies leftism and, when it contradicts leftism, it is not applied. Liberalism justifies leftist rights but other rights are never discussed. We constantly see this in the history of the modern West.

And this is all I wanted to say about the relativistic ideology of liberalism. However, the absolutist religion of leftism merits an additional explanation. More specifically, what are the mechanisms that make leftism always evolve in the same direction (the opposite direction from obvious reality and natural law)? This will be seen in the next installment of this text.

 

Hoy quisiera hablar de un héroe anónimo, de un trabajador que sostiene la economía de este país, de un valiente cuya verdadera historia pocos conocen. A falta de un mejor nombre, podemos llamarlo “el hermano lejano”.

La historia del hermano lejano comienza en un rincón de El Salvador, donde nuestro protagonista siente que la vida es cada vez más difícil. Quizás no puede mantener a sus hijos, quizás no puede darles el futuro que desearía para ellos, quizás ve como sus habilidades y ganas de trabajar no son valoradas y sólo consiguen un mísero salario. Otros se rendirían y se acomodarían, quejándose y criticando sin hacer nada. Pero el hermano lejano es diferente: se esfuerza y se rebusca, pero no encuentra la salida.

Un rayo de esperanza surge cuando un familiar que vive en Estados Unidos llega al aeropuerto de Comalapa para pasar las fiestas en su tierra. Este familiar trae regalos para todos sus conocidos, enseña a todo el mundo la foto del auto lujoso que tiene en el país del norte y explica a todo aquel que le quiera escuchar que, al contrario que en El Salvador, en Estados Unidos sí que es fácil triunfar y superarse económicamente, como él ha hecho.

El hermano lejano escucha cautivado esas historias de abundancia y prosperidad que su familiar repite una y otra vez con poco disimulado orgullo. Y sueña con triunfar en tierras lejanas. Otros se quedarían soñando despiertos y nunca harían nada. Otros se acobardarían ante un viaje carísimo y lleno de peligros. Pero el hermano lejano es diferente. Pide prestado a sus parientes y gasta todos sus ahorros para pagar al “coyote” que le llevará a Estados Unidos. Se despide de su familia con amargura: sabe que pasaran años hasta que la vuelva a ver, si es que alguna vez puede volverla a ver.

El día en el que se va el hermano lejano es un día triste para este país, pues se marcha uno de los salvadoreños con más iniciativa, valentía y ganas de trabajar. Su trabajo, que tanto se necesita para el desarrollo de El Salvador, se irá a ayudar a otros países que no lo necesitan.

El viaje del hermano lejano estará lleno de sinsabores. Atravesará ilegalmente Méjico, escondiéndose de la policía mejicana y alojándose en infectas pensiones para el camino. Cruzará la frontera de Estados Unidos caminando durante días por un desierto árido e infernal, intentando no deshidratarse y escondiéndose de la Migra. Quizás muera en el camino o quizás sea capturado y devuelto a El Salvador. O quizás, después de muchas penalidades, pueda llegar a una ciudad estadounidense, donde le esperan unos conocidos, que le ayudarán hasta que pueda establecerse. Así pasará a formar parte de ese tercio de la población salvadoreña que vive en tierras lejanas.

Pronto se sentirá decepcionado con lo que encuentra. Estados Unidos no es un país en el que las calles estén cubiertas de oro, sino en el que hay que trabajar muy duro para poder sobrevivir. Las cantidades de dinero que parecen grandes en El Salvador son insuficientes en el país del norte, pues todo es muy caro allí. El hermano lejano tiene dos empleos diarios de ocho horas cada uno y vende algunos artículos los fines de semana. Después del trabajo, maneja durante una hora para llegar a dormir a un apartamento que comparte con otros inmigrantes, en el cual cada familia vive en una habitación diferente. Para ello necesita un auto y no puede comprarlo al contado, así que pide un crédito de varios años que va pagando con esfuerzo.

Mientras se esconde de la policía para no ser deportado, soporta el desprecio de los norteamericanos a la gente de piel morena que no habla bien el inglés. Envía dinero a sus familiares, que estos despilfarran, pues piensan que es muy fácil ganarlo en un país tan rico. Y, de vez en cuando, va a un local de comida salvadoreña y allí, mientras se toma una cerveza Pilsener y come unas caras pupusas, recuerda a El Salvador y a los seres queridos que allí dejó. Pero no hay mucho tiempo para la nostalgia, pues hay que irse a dormir temprano para trabajar el día siguiente.

Después de varios años, si tiene suerte, conseguirá reunir algo de dinero y estabilizar su situación migratoria, de forma que podrá hacer un viaje a su tierra, a visitar a esa madre que está envejeciendo, a esos hijos que ya no lo conocen, a aquella esposa que tanto ha extrañado y que, después de tanto tiempo, sólo parece un sueño lejano.

Pero no quiere de ninguna manera que sus parientes lo vean como un perdedor o que conozcan el sufrimiento que le cuesta el dinero que envía a su familia. Él ansía ser admirado por aquellos que más quiere, por lo que gasta parte de sus ahorros en comprar regalos para todos sus conocidos, para dar la impresión de que vive en una gran abundancia. Saca una foto a ese auto que, en su mayor parte, todavía debe al banco. Y toma un vuelo a El Salvador, donde presumirá incesantemente de lo fácil que es triunfar y superarse económicamente en Estados Unidos, como él ha hecho.

Un conocido suyo escuchará cautivado esas historias exageradas de abundancia y prosperidad y soñará con triunfar en tierras lejanas. Este conocido pedirá prestado a sus parientes y gastará todos sus ahorros para pagar al “coyote” que le llevará a Estados Unidos, repitiendo el ciclo.

Y así comenzará de nuevo la historia de este héroe anónimo, de este trabajador que sostiene la economía de este país, de este valiente cuya verdadera historia pocos conocen. De aquel que, a falta de un mejor nombre, podemos llamar “el hermano lejano”.

 

America’s Super-Elite Disconnect

https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/americas-super-elite-disconnect?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

 

Original en inglés aquí

Realmente creo que el coeficiente intelectual judío es más alto que el coeficiente intelectual blanco y no tengo ningún problema con eso. ¿Tienes algún problema en saber que hay personas más inteligentes, más guapas o mejores que tú? Si haces eso, eres un pobre hombre y tienes baja autoestima.

Pero el coeficiente intelectual no es lo más relevante. En cualquier campo dado, hay más personas blancas inteligentes que judías inteligentes, porque, aunque los judíos son más inteligentes, hay una pequeña minoría en el mundo y en Estados Unidos. Esto no explica el éxito del pueblo judío, que es casi total: en las finanzas, en la política, en los medios de comunicación, en los negocios, en las organizaciones internacionales, etc.

Lo que hace poderosos a los judíos es ser tribales (o etnocéntricos, es decir, preferir fuertemente a los miembros de su grupo) en la única sociedad que no es tribal en la historia del mundo: la sociedad occidental. Hasta hace algunas décadas, los judios eran el único pueblo tribal en nuestra sociedad. Ahora tenemos más pueblos tribales entre nosotros.

Esta es la razón por la que el coeficiente intelectual promedio de la India no es tan alto, pero los indios dominan la tecnología y han reemplazado a los judíos en el negocio de los diamantes en Europa. Si eres miembro de una tribu, puedes cooperar y «la unión hace la fuerza». Esta es la filosofía común a todos los pueblos de la Tierra: indios, chinos, musulmanes, latinoamericanos (donde vivo), africanos, etc. Todos menos nosotros.

Nosotros tenemos otra teoría. ¡Estamos orgullosos del individualismo!, como dicen los estadounidenses. Queremos competir en el mercado y dejar que ganen los mejores. Somos ciegos a los colores. Creemos en la meritocracia. Cada pueblo ayuda a los suyos y, como dice el dicho americano, los pájaros del mismo plumaje vuelan juntos. Excepto los pájaros blancos, que vuelan en distintas direcciones. Cada uno de ellos está solo y afronta la vida solo.

El hecho de que no somos tribales tiene una larga historia. La Iglesia Católica prohibió el matrimonio entre primos por lo que las tribus desaparecieron mucho antes que en otras sociedades. Luego el feudalismo y el capitalismo destruyeron a la familia extendida. La Ilustración produjo una filosofía individualista que guió nuestra política individualista, etc.

El hecho es que, si naces no blanco, tienes ayuda. Si naces blanco, tienes que afrontar la vida solo. Aquí en El Salvador, las personas que quieren emigrar ilegalmente a Estados Unidos no están solas. Primero, si tienen hijos, pueden dejarlos con su familia, a veces durante años («arrimados» llaman a estos niños). Luego, cuando llegan a Estados Unidos, un familiar o un amigo les deja vivir en su casa hasta que consigan su propia vivienda. No estás solo.

Cuando vivía en República Dominicana, hace algunas décadas, la dueña de la casa donde vivía (una mujer mulata) me vio sufrir y quiso ayudarme. Ella conocía a un señor de mi país (España, en Europa) y le dijo «Conozco a un chico español», pensando que ese señor me iba a ayudar porque éramos del mismo país. De hecho, los dominicanos se ayudan entre sí en un país extranjero. Su respuesta: «Hay muchos españoles en el mundo», en tono despectivo.

He visto gente ayudándose entre sí, pero no entre los blancos. Los peruanos contratan a otros peruanos. Los judíos contratan judíos. Los indios contratan indios. Los latinoamericanos se ayudan unos a otros. En España los chinos no van a los bancos: se prestan entre ellos. No compran en tiendas españolas. Se compran entre ellos. Los musulmanes se protegen unos a otros.

¡Solo nosotros! Somos una raza de superhombres, que no necesitan ayuda y están orgullosos de volar solos. Mientras nos jactamos de nuestra superioridad, somos conquistados y esclavizados, pero disfrutamos de nuestro orgullo. Otras personas nos patean el trasero sin piedad.

Y ésta es la causa del éxito judío. Fueron los únicos pueblos no occidentales que vivieron entre nosotros durante mucho tiempo. Mientras nosotros volábamos solos, ellos volaban juntos. He visto en este tipo de blogs criticar a los judíos porque su primer pensamiento siempre es «¿Qué es bueno para los judíos?» Pero esto es una virtud, no un vicio. En lugar de dejar solo al hermano, ayudarse unos a otros es una virtud y todos la tienen menos nosotros. Y es por eso que estamos siendo conquistados y sojuzgados en nuestros propios países, sin necesidad de que se dispare una bala.

I really think that Jewish IQ is higher than White IQ and have no problem with that. Have you any problem knowing that there are people smarter, prettier or better than you? If you do that, you are a poor man and you have low self-esteem.

But IQ is not the most relevant thing. In any given field, there are more White intelligent people than Jewish intelligent people, because, although Jew are more intelligent, there are a tiny minority in the world and in USA. This does not explain the success of Jewish people, which is almost total: in finance, in politics, in media, in business, in international organizations, etc…

What makes Jews powerful is to be clannish in the only non-clannish society in the history of the world: Western society. There were the only clannish people until some decades ago. Now, we have more clannish peoples among us.

This is why Indian average IQ is not that high, but Indian people are dominating tech and they had replaced Jews in the diamond business in Europe. If you are clannish, you can cooperate and «united we stand, divided we fall». This is the common philosophy to every people in Earth: Indian, Chinese, Muslim, Latin American (where I live), African, etc. Everybody except us.

We have another theory. We are proud of individualism!, as US people say. We want to compete in the market and let the best people win. We are color blind. We believe in meritocracy. Everybody is helping their own and birds of a feather fly together. Except white birds, that fly in different directions. Each one of them is alone and faces life alone.

Our lack of clannishness has a long history. The Catholic church forbade cousin marriage so the tribes disappeared much earlier than in other societies. Then feudalism and capitalism destroyed the extended family. The Enlightenment produced an individualistic philosophy that guided our individualistic politics and so on.

The fact is that, if you are born non-White, you have help. If you are born White, you have to face life alone. Here in El Salvador, people that want to illegally emigrate to the US are not alone. First, if they have kids, they can leave their kids with their family, sometimes for years («arrimados» call these kids and I don’t find a good English translation). Then, when they get to the US, a family or a friend lets them live in their home until they can get their own place. You are not alone.

When I was living in Dominican Republic, some decades ago, the owner of the house where I was living (a Mulatto woman) saw me suffering and she wanted to help me. She knew a man from my country (Spain, in Europe) and told him «I know a Spanish boy», thinking that this guy was going to help me because we were from the same country. In fact, Dominican people help each other in a foreign country. His response: «There are a lot of Spanish people», in a deprecatory manner.

I have seen people helping each other but not among whites. Peruvians hire other Peruvians. Jews hire Jews. Indians hire Indians. Latin American help each other. In Spain, Chinese people don’t use banks: they lend each other. They don’t buy in Spanish shops. They buy to each other. Muslim people protect each other.

Only us! We are a race of supermen, who don’t need help and are proud of flying alone. While we brag about our superiority, we are being conquered and slaved but we relish in our pride. Other people kick our ass mercilessly.

And this is the cause of the Jewish success. They were the only non-Western people that lived among us for longtime. While we were flying alone, they were flying together. I have seen in this kind of blogs criticizing Jews because his first thought is always «What is good for the Jews?» But this is a virtue, not a vice. Instead of leaving your brother alone, helping each other is a virtue and everybody has it except us. And this is why we are being conquered and subjugated in our own countries, without a bullet being shot.

(Tomado de esta página y traducido) Versión en inglés aquí.

Comentario 1:

En nuestra época, los enemigos de Dios son un montón de payasos, que te apuntan con una pistola a la cabeza por si acaso empiezas a reír.

En el fondo saben que son ridículos (podéis ver algunas fotos de la última moda sexual). Hace unos 35 años, cuando era joven, en una fiesta con amigos, tomé una peluca y me pinté como una mujer, con ropa de mujer, a modo de broma. Ahora el chiste es de verdad.

En otra época, no se atreverían a comportarse de esta manera, porque la gente se burlaría de ellos sin cesar.

Como se comportan de manera ridícula en privado, su propia conciencia da testimonio de ellos, ya que sus pensamientos los acusan. La conciencia (la capacidad de distinguir el bien del mal, lo verdadero de lo falso) es una mierda, incluso para los no cristianos, ver Romanos 2:14-15). No se puede desconectar, aunque se puede calmar temporalmente. Es lo que impulsa el liberalismo, el movimiento woke y cosas por el estilo.

[Romanos 2, 14-15 tiene una definición de la ley natural: «Porque cuando los paganos que no tienen ley, hacen por naturaleza lo que es de la ley, estos, aunque no tengan ley, son ley para sí mismos, mostrando la obra de la ley escrita en sus corazones [hoy diríamos sus cerebros], pues su conciencia da testimonio, y sus pensamientos los acusan o los excusan.»]

Esta gente se debate entre el placer que sienten al comportarse como payasos y la conciencia de saber que están haciendo mal y son ridículos. Por eso se pasan la vida reprimiendo el pensamiento de que están haciendo mal y son ridículos. Esto requiere mucha energía mental y este conflicto interno se exterioriza al ámbito público, destruyendo la sociedad y volviéndola totalitaria.

No pueden soportar la idea de que en algún lugar alguien pueda pensar mal de ellos, pueda pensar que son ridículos. Esto reaviva el conflicto interno. Por eso exigen leyes contra la LGBTIfobia y programas obligatorios de celebración LGBTI. Si todos los aplauden, podrán calmar su conciencia por un rato. Pero la conciencia es jodida y comienza a resurgir, por lo que necesitan una nueva dosis de elogios y celebración. ¿Un día para sus perversiones? ¿Un mes entero? Todas las empresas los celebran sin cesar. Nunca hay suficiente.

(Me pongo como ejemplo. Soy un hombre blanco que se casó con una mujer no blanca. Sé que mucha gente dice que el mestizaje está mal. ¿Me siento mal por esto? Para nada. ¿Quiero que esta gente se calle? Para nada. ¿Quiero leyes que prohíban este tipo de expresiones? Definitivamente no. ¿Quiero que todos celebren matrimonios interraciales? No. ¿Quiero desfilar con mi esposa y que todos me aplaudan? Esto es ridículo, preferiría no hacerlo. Realmente no me importa un bledo lo que los demás piensen de mí, porque no tengo una conciencia culpable que me atormente).

Tienen estos desfiles en los que se  comportan públicamente como los payasos y pervertidos que son en privado. Quieren la absolución de su conciencia culpable sin intentar cambiar (como hacen los cristianos). Por eso a estos desfiles los llaman “orgullo”. Se trata de que todos los aplaudan para que se sientan un poco mejor, mientras en el fondo su conciencia los acusa.

Por eso te apuntan con un arma a la cabeza. No te burles de ellos. No les digas que está mal. No les digas que no quieres aplaudir y celebrar sus tonterías. Como sabes, perdí mi trabajo porque me negué a aplaudir.

---

Comentario 2:

“Creo que la conciencia humana es muy dócil. Mi lectura de Romanos 2:14-15 no es que todos los gentiles (o judíos) tienen la ley escrita en sus corazones, sino que algunos la tienen y lo sabemos “cuando” sus actos siguen la ley”.

Como todo en biología humana, tiene una distribución estadística normal, una curva de campana. Hay personas con un alto sentido de conciencia, otras tienen poco sentido. Sólo los psicópatas y similares no tienen conciencia.

Esto es lo que produce la diferencia de actitudes entre ese tipo de personas. Todo el mundo conoce a una persona gay, relajada, del tipo que “vive y deja vivir”. No están tan atormentados por su conciencia y/o no practican las prácticas más degradadas y pervertidas.

“Creo que las exhibiciones directas son más agresivas que terapéuticas. La transgresión pública de viejas normas sociales es un baile de victoria o un desfile de victoria. «

Creo que son ambas cosas. Cuando hablo de la parte terapéutica, me refiero especialmente a este tipo de personas que van al desfile mayormente desnudas con el tipo de ropa que disfrutan en sus prácticas privadas pervertidas. No hay razón para que una manifestación a favor de los estilos LGBTI sea de esta manera.

Pero quieren ser absueltos, celebrados. No necesitarían esto si no se sintieran mal por ello.

Últimamente ha habido una serie de vídeos en Internet que muestran a personas trans yendo a negocios y gritándole al gerente porque usó el pronombre equivocado. El gerente intenta eludir el problema y sólo ofrece el servicio. La última vez que vi a uno de ellos fue en un video en la Ciudad de México y el gerente fue completamente educado, tuvo mucha paciencia y una gran dignidad. Mientras la persona trans le gritaba y se comportaba como un loco, el gerente sólo quería hacer su trabajo. ¿Qué fue lo que molestó tanto a la persona trans? Que el gerente se negó a aceptar el pronombre trans. Empezó a llamar  a este individuo con expresiones masculinas (lo que produjo el conflicto) y luego evitó el uso de pronombres (en español, esto es común). Pero no se refirió al cliente como “ella” y esto produjo un torrente de ira, locura y abuso en el individuo trans. Insistió e insistió y se quejó de que no le decían “ella”. Y cada vez que el gerente no hacía eso (tampoco lo llamaba “él”), se mostraba más indignado y abusivo. Un vídeo en Estados Unidos era completamente similar.

¿Pierdes la cabeza y te sientes atacado si un gerente de negocios se refiere a ti como “señora” y luego te trata de manera neutral en cuanto al sexo? Por supuesto que no. Puedes pensar que está haciendo una broma o que tiene mala vista o que ha tenido un error pasajero o no está del todo bien de la cabeza. ¿Por qué? Porque sabes que eres un hombre. Como el individuo trans. Sabe que es un hombre en el fondo y gasta toda su energía mental en negar este hecho obvio. Es la conciencia.

Supongamos que el individuo trans en la Ciudad de México sólo quisiera avanzar en la causa de los llamados “derechos trans”. Por supuesto, él quiere hacer eso, pero ¿es una pequeña empresa y una interacción mundana la mejor manera de concentrar su energía? ¿Qué tal hacer una manifestación, perseguir a los políticos y cosas así? ¿Por qué pierdes los estribos y te comportas como un loco en lugar de limitarte a protestar y quejarte? La gente solía protestar a favor del comunismo pero no se comportaban como si les hubieran dado un permiso temporal para salir del manicomio.

Es personal para ellos. Están tratando de suprimir la certeza de que son hombres. Es la conciencia.

“Algunos quieren hacernos creer que el hombre es el Animal Racional. Yo digo que Animal Racionalizador está más cerca de la verdad. »

Exactamente. Racionalizamos las cosas que hacemos mal. No necesitas racionalizar que eres hombre, que eres heterosexual, que amas a tus hijos, que te sacrificaste por un amigo, que vas a la iglesia o practicas deportes, o que eres obeso porque tienes un enfermedad.

Racionalizas tener sexo con extraños, divorciarte de tu pareja y dejar a tus hijos en una familia rota, consumir drogas, cualquier tipo de egoísmo, ser obeso porque comes como un cerdo.

Sabes que estas cosas están mal. Por eso es necesario racionalizarlas. Por eso quieres que otras personas las aprueben.

Así es la conciencia. Racionalizar es intentar calmar nuestra conciencia sin intentar cambiar nuestro comportamiento, pero esto sólo funciona temporalmente. Como dije, “la conciencia es jodida”.

Recuerdo el discurso de Michelle Williams en los Globos de Oro hace un tiempo. De la nada, expresó de manera diplomática que abortó a su bebé para seguir su carrera. Lo dijo de una forma que no recuerdo bien pero podéis buscarlo en Youtube. Era “Yo también tuve que practicar mi derecho a elegir o algo así” (a diferencia de “Maté a mi bebé” o “Tuve un aborto”: cuando usas expresiones ambiguas y evasivas, sabes que has hecho mal y no quieres esconderte detrás de esas expresiones para disfrazar tu culpa, tu conciencia).

De todos modos, recuerdo haber pensado: “¿Por qué hace eso? A nadie le importa. No es que estén discutiendo el tema del aborto. No es que esté hablando de su vida personal. Ella está recibiendo un premio, eso es todo”. Luego vi a toda la gente en el público sonriendo y aplaudiendo, haciendo falsas expresiones de simpatía (estas son las personas más narcisistas del mundo y las expresiones faciales eran muy falsas).

Y entonces me di cuenta. Estaba en busca de una ABSOLUCIÓN por haber matado a su bebé. Quería ser aplaudida por los demás para apaciguar su culpa, su conciencia. Buscaba lo mismo que yo busco cuando voy al confesionario: ser limpiado de mis pecados. Pero cuando voy al confesionario y trato de dejar de pecar, dejo de sentirme culpable por los pecados pasados. La absolución que buscan estas personas es falsa (porque no intentan dejar de pecar), por lo que sólo funciona por un tiempo.

“Dios, Padre de las misericordias, por la muerte y resurrección de su Hijo, ha reconciliado consigo al mundo y ha derramado el Espíritu Santo para el perdón de los pecados; que por el ministerio de la iglesia Dios os conceda perdón y paz, y os absuelva de vuestros pecados en el nombre del Padre, y del Hijo, y del Espíritu Santo”.

---

Comentario 3: por otra persona

Sí. El objetivo no es la tolerancia, es la validación. Pero hay otra dimensión y es el ejercicio del poder puro, pasivo-agresivo. Leí un artículo sobre un ejecutivo alemán con el último fetiche: algunos días aparece como hombre con su nombre de nacimiento y pronombres obvios, otros días aparece como mujer y usa su nombre fetiche e insiste en pronombres femeninos. ¿Te imaginas el escalofrío de placer que experimenta este pequeño monstruo, azotando a todos los que lo rodean con sus mezquinos códigos de comportamiento? Ésta es la mentalidad totalitaria; No despreciamos lo suficiente a estas personas.

(Taken from this page )

Comment 1:

In our age, the enemies of God are a bunch of buffoons, with a gun pointing to your head just in case you start laughing.

Deep inside they know they are ridiculous (you can see some pictures of the last sexual fad). About 35 years ago, when I was young, in a party with friends, I took a wig and painted myself like a woman, with women clothes, as a joke. Now the joke is real.

In other age, they wouldn’t dare to behave this way, because they would be mocked endlessly.

Since they behave in a ridiculous manner when they are in private, their own conscience bears witness for them, since their thoughts accuse them. Conscience (the ability to distinguish right from wrong, true from false.) is a b*tch, even for non-Christians, see Romans 2:14-15 ). It cannot be disconnected, although it can be temporarily soothed. It is what fuels liberalism, wokeism and the like.

They are torn between the pleasure of behaving like buffoons and the conscience of knowing that they are doing wrong and they are ridiculous. This is why they spend their life suppressing the thought that they are doing wrong and they are ridiculous. This takes a lot of mental energy and this inner conflict is externalized to the public realm, destroying society, making it totalitarian.

They cannot bear the thought that somewhere, someone can think bad of them, can think that they are fools. This revives the inner conflict. This is why they demand LGBTI-phobia laws and compulsory LGBTI celebration programs. If everybody applauds them, they can make their conscience to be quiet for a while. But conscience is a b*tch and starts raising its ugly head again so they need a new dose of praise and celebration. A day for their perversions? A whole month? All the companies celebrating them endlessly. There is never enough.

(I put myself as an example. I am a white man who married a mulatto woman. I know many people say miscegenation is wrong. I feel myself bad for this? Not at all. I want these people to shut up? Not at all. I want laws forbidding these kinds of expressions? Definitively not. I want everybody to celebrate interracial marriages? No. I want to parade with my wife and everybody applauding me? This is ridiculous, I would prefer not to do this. I really don’t give a damn what other people think of me. Because I don’t have a guilty conscience that tortures me).

They have these parades when they behave publicly like the fools and perverts they are in private. They want absolution for their guilty conscience without trying to change (like Christians do). This is why they call these parades “pride”. It is about everybody applauding them so they feel a bit better, while deep down their conscience accuses them.

So this is why they have a gun pointing to your head. Don’t mock them. Don’t tell them it’s wrong. Don’t tell them that you don’t want to applaud and celebrate their foolishness. As you know, I lost my job because I refused to applaud.

---

Comment 2:

“I think the human conscience is very pliant. My reading of Romans 2:14-15 is not that all gentiles (or Jews) have the law written on their hearts, but that some do and we know this “when” their acts follow the law.”

As everything in human biology, it has a normal statistical distribution, a Bell’s curve. There are people with high sense of conscience, some other have low sense. Only psychopaths’ and the like have no conscience.

This amounts to the difference of attitude between that kind of people. Everybody knows a gay person, who is relaxed, a “live and let live” kind of person. They are not that haunted by their conscience and/or they do not practice the most degraded and perverted practices.

“I think in-your-face displays are more aggressive than therapeutic. Public transgression of old social norms is a victory dance or a victory parade. ”

I think they are both. When I talk about the therapeutic part, I refer especially to this kind of people that go to the parade mostly naked with the kind of clothes they enjoy in their private perverted practices. There is no reason for a demonstration in favor of LGBTI styles to be this way.

But they want to be absolved, celebrated. They wouldn’t need this if they didn’t feel bad about it.

Lately, there have been a series of videos on the Internet showing trans people going to businesses and screaming at the manager because he used the wrong pronoun. The manager tries to sidestep the issue and only offer the service. The last time I saw one of them was a video in Mexico City and the manager was completely polite, had a lot of patience and a great dignity. While the trans person screamed at him and behaved like an insane individual, the manager only wanted to do his work. What was the thing that irked the trans person so much? That the manager refused to accept the trans pronoun. He started calling this individual as a male (which produced the conflict) and then, he avoided using pronouns (in Spanish, this is common). But he didn’t refer to the customer as “she” and this produced a torrent of anger, insanity and abuse in the trans individual. He insisted and insisted and complained about not being called “she”. And each time the manager didn’t do that (didn’t call him “he” either), he was more outraged and abusive. A video in the USA was completely similar.

Do you lose your mind and feel attacked if a business manager refers to you as a “lady” and then treats you in a gender-neutral way? Of course, not. You may think that he is doing a joke or that he has bad eyesight or that he has had a temporary mistake or it is not completely well in the head. Why? Because you know you are a man. Like the trans individual. He knows he is a man deep inside and spends all his mental energy in denying this obvious fact. It is the conscience.

Let’s suppose that the trans individual in Mexico City only wanted to advance the cause of so-called “trans rights”. Of course, he wants to do that, but is a small business and a mundane interaction the best way to focus your energy on? What about doing a demonstration, going after politicians and things like that? Why do you lose your temper and behave like an insane individual instead of only protesting and complaining? People used to protest in favor of Communism but they didn’t behave like they were given a temporary permission to get out of the asylum

It is personal for them. They are trying to suppress the certainty that they are men. It is the conscience.

“Some would have us believe that man is the Rational Animal. I say Rationalizing Animal is closer to the truth. ”

Exactly. We rationalize the things we do wrong. You don’t need to rationalize that you are a man, that you are heterosexual, that you love your children, that you sacrificed for a friend, that you go to the church or practice sports, or that you are obese because you have a disease.

You rationalize having sex with strangers, divorcing your partner and leaving your kids in a broken family, doing drugs, any kind of selfishness, being obese because you eat like a pig.

You know that these things are wrong. This is why you need to rationalize them. This is why you want other people to approve it.

So it is the conscience. Rationalizing is trying to soothe our conscience without trying to change our behavior, but this only works temporarily. As I said, “conscience is a bitch”.

I remember Michelle Williams’ speech at the Golden Globes some time ago. Out of the blue, she expressed in a diplomatic way, that she aborted her baby to pursue her career. He said it in a way that I don’t remember well but you can look it up on Youtube. It was “I also had to practice my right to choose or something like this” ( as opposed to “I killed my baby” or “I had an abortion”: when you use weasel words, you know that you have done wrong and you want to hide behind expressions to disguise your guilt, your conscience).

Anyway, I remember thinking: “Why does she do that? Nobody cares. It is not like they are discussing the topic of abortion. It is not like she is talking about her personal life. She is receiving an award, that’s it”. Then I saw all the people in the public smiling and applauding, doing fake expressions of sympathy (these are the most narcissistic people in the world and the facial expressions were so fake).

And then it dawned on me. She was in search of an ABSOLUTION for having killed her baby. He wanted to be applauded by other people to appease her guilt, her conscience. He looked for the same I look when I go to the confessional: to be cleared of my sins. But when I go to the confessional and try to stop sinning, I stop feeling guilty about past sins. The absolution these people search is fake (because they don’t try to stop sinning) so it only works for a while.

“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his son has reconciled the world to himself and poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the church may God grant you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

---

Comment 3: by another person

Yes. The goal is not tolerance, it is validation. But there’s another dimension and it’s the exercise of raw, passive-aggressive power. I read an article about a German executive with the ultimate kink: some days he shows up male with his birth name and obvious pronouns, some days he shows up female and goes by his fetish name and insists on female pronouns. Can you imagine the frisson this little freak experiences, whipsawing everyone around him with his petty behavioral codes? This is the totalitarian mindset; we don’t despise these people enough.

 

[El 9 de novembre de 2023, fa més de 20 anys, vaig escriure este text i el vaig enviar a la família. Ara que Letizia està de nou en les notícies, he recuperat el text i he vist que, encara que l’estil em pareix immadur,  vaig avaluar bé la situació]

Veritat indiscutible número 1: El Príncep està enfigat.

Eixa mirada de «borrego» quan la mira… Els dos mil litres de bava que li cauen cada vegada que la sent parlar.. Algun ocasional sospir quan ix del palau, com dient «Com és possible tanta felicitat!»… No hi ha dubte: El Príncep està enfigat. Very enfigat. Fins i tot quan ella el corregeix davant de tot el món, ell la mira amb aquella mirada d’amor, orgull per ella i felicitat. El diagnòstic és clar: Enfiguitis crònica. Encara que dóna una sana enveja a aquells que mai no han estat tan enamorats.

Veritat indiscutible número 2: Letizia porta els pantalons en eixa relació.

Ui! Això es veu a tres quilòmetres! La forma en que ella li diu «Déjame hablar», com el corregeix en veu baixa cada vegada que a ell se li oblida una paraula, com sempre vol quedar al mateix nivell… És clar que, en la intimitat, ella el domina a ell com vol. Ell fa tot el que ella vol.

Me’ls imagine en el llit conjugal, mentre en el reproductor de CDs sonen marxes militars i el Príncep desfila i se li quadra a Letizia dient-li «A sus órdenes, señor».

Veritat indiscutible número 3: El Príncep i Letizia estàn farts de fer-ho.

La forma en què es toquen, la forma de posar-se davant de les càmeres, es nota que hi ha intimitat física entre ells.

Veritat indiscutible número 4: La futura Reina és una creguda insuportable.

No és només que siga «trepa»: és que s’ho creu moltíssim. La primera vegada que van parlar davant de les càmeres no li va dedicar ni una sola paraula al seu promés, encara que ell va dir unes boniques paraules sobre ella. Ella només va parlar de la seua carrera professional, de qué bé ho havia fet i com ho faria igual de bé a partir d’ara. Com dient «He sigut boníssima com periodista, i seré boníssima com a reina» (mentre ell parlava que era la dona amb la qual volia formar una família, quina diferència).

És significativa la forma en que corregeix a un Príncep i com es posa en un pla d’igualtat amb ell. O quan, a la petició de mà, el Príncep va dir que li regalava una joia caríssima. Ella va voler estar a la mateixa alçada, dient «i jo li regalaré una joia literària». Hahahahahahhahahaha. La viva encarnació del principi: «Quiero y no puedo». La «joia literària» que li regalarà segur que costarà cent vegades menys que la joia de veritat. Però ella no vol ser menys que ningú.

Veritat indiscutible número 5: La futura Reina està ben correguda.

No sols va estar vivint amb Alonso Guerrero deu anys abans de casar-se amb ell, sinó que després del divorci, va tindre una relació amb Carles Francino, periodista de TV3 i amb altres que no sabrem. La seguretat en ella mateixa, la forma en què parla la col·loquen en la categoria de «bàsicament ben follada», com va dir Terenci Moix en «El sexe dels àngels». No és que tinga res en contra de les xiques ben corregudes, només estic constatant un fet.

Veritat indiscutible número 6: Letizia segueix el model «Lady Di», no el model «Sofía».

A Letizia no la vorem mai com a Sofía, discreta, sempre en un segon pla davant de les càmeres. Ella aspira a ser l’objectiu dels flaixos, a tindre veu pròpia, a que la seua opinió siga tinguda en compte. En poques paraules, a ser protagonista i a destacar al mateix nivell que el Príncep (o més). Igual que Lady Di en els seus millors temps.

Gràcies que el Príncep està enamorat i això no li importa (almenys de moment). Com comence a estar gelós de l’atenció pública que desperta la seua parella (igual que ho va estar Carles d’Angleterra), açò pot acabar com el rosari de l’aurora.

Veritat indiscutible número 7: El lema de la Monarquia ha canviat.

Abans era «Todo por España». Ara és: «Por el interés te quiero Andrés». És obvi que el Príncep està enamorat de Letizia independentment de la seua posició. Estaria Letizia amb el Príncep si ell fóra un home pobre? Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
Que em pixeeee…!!!! Quina pregunta més estúpida!

Veritat indiscutible número 8: La informació a Espanya està (molt) manipulada.

Això ja ho sabíem des de fa anys. Però mai no ha sigut més evident que ara. La forma en què Televisió Espanyola va amagar en els seus primers telediaris que la xica era divorciada. Els mitjans de comunicació corejant les excel·lències de Letizia i parlant-ne a totes hores. Ni una sola veu discrepant. Qualsevol estranger que veja les teles espanyoles arribaria a la conclusió que el 100% del poble espanyol està contentíssim amb la futura Reina. Que no hi ha ningú que tinga cap dubte. En uns altres països, hi ha llibertat per parlar sobre la Monarquia (bé o malament). A Espanya hi ha democràcia en tot menys en això.

Veritat indiscutible número 9: Aquest és un pas més en la fi de la Monarquia.

Hi hagué una època en què els reis realment tenien el poder: manaven i es feia el que ells volien. Des que van arribar les democràcies al món occidental, això no era permissible, però les famílies reials van conseguir reciclar-se convertint-se en un símbol i podent així continuar portant el seu luxós estil de vida a càrrec del contribuent.

Ara bé, un símbol és una cosa molt etèria: es tracta d’una imatge i de la percepció que en té la gent. Si la percepció canvia, el símbol s’arruïna. El símbol de la Monarquia és que els membres de les famílies reials tenen «alguna cosa especial» que els permet representar als seus súbdits: un sentit de l’honor, una disposició a sacrificar-se pel seu país, etc.

Des de fa uns anys, els prínceps europeus són els que més estan fent per destruir aquesta percepció. Al llarg de tota Europa, els prínceps volen tindre totes les llibertats d’una persona normal, entre elles, casar-se amb qui els done la gana, divorciar-se, viure com a persones normals en l’estranger, tindre amants públiques fora del matrimoni o comparar-se amb un condó. Però això sí, seguir sent prínceps i reis. Això està molt bé per ells: tenen tots els advantatges sense els inconvenients. Però destrueix el mite de la monarquia. Encara que existeix una inèrcia històrica, cada vegada més el poble se n’adonarà que els reis no «tenen res especial»: són persones normals que han tingut la sort de nàixer en família reial. Això acaba amb el mite de la Monarquia. Encara trigarà molts anys, però és un pas mes perquè la Monarquia acabe, la qual cosa és inevitable, perquè el principi de la Monarquia xoca frontalment amb el de la democràcia. Un sospita (però no té la seguretat) que Felipe sap que les Monarquies estan condemnades i que l’únic que vol és viure la seua vida.