The Political Dysphoria of the Trans-Right

 Over the 20th century, Marxists have been successful in establishing themselves as not only the standard bearer of the left, but the very definition of the left itself. Then most other non-Marxist leftists, having accepted the supremacy of Marxism found themselves politically homeless. Many of them being fundamentally post-modernist relied on their tried and true gnostic belief in unknowable truths to redefine themselves as the right. Because after all, in these modern times, the old definition of right and left no longer applies as they argue. There is no right or left as it's now us guys over here on our side of the great debate who think this and those other guys over there who think something else. So if we disagree with the other guys who say they are the left as they understand the term through the personal epiphany of gnosis, then we who disagree with the leftist must be on the right in this exercise. If a group can't define themselves logically and rationally, then that group can fancy themselves to be anything they want but they are really nothing at all. 

And so we have the essence of the trans-right of non-Marxian leftists parading about in right-wing drag. They are easily spotted as they usually spend most of their time bashing conservatives and others on the right and refuse to do anything to really oppose the left other than mildly complain about them. 

And in this, all the trans-right needs to add is using nationalism as a sort of boob job to complete the ensemble. Because, if the Marxian leftist is an internationalist, the those on the right must be nationalist as the right is the opposite of the left.

Further, where the officially recognized leftist is the "I support the current thing" NPC, those who identify as being on the right become a counter-programmed "I'm against the current thing" NPC. Even if there's no such thing as the political left and the right there must be some kind of opposition to those guys over there who think something different from what we think. 

Strictly following either the precepts of a central ideological authority or opposing those who espouse heretical or blasphemous positions for no other reason than it's the views that come from those guys who think different over there is the hallmark of the leftist even if he hates Marx and identifies as a nationalist.

It's all really just pure emoting over words and phrases. Squaring the circle by taking positions based on emotion is exactly what any leftist worth his salt does.

Whereas the leftist current thing is usually based on lies used to promote their agenda, we must still be careful to consider the current thing in context and whether it should be opposed or not based on the facts. Maybe this time the left stumbled onto something that is right because even a broken clock is right twice a day and it would be necessary to deny the left any victory. But not just to deny the left a victory in an issue that is morally and intellectually correct but to expose the left's subterfuge in using the issue to promote their agenda or expand their power. There is more persuasive power in an argument that is true to convince the majority centrist, non-political Joe and Jane Normie to support your cause than a lie hiding the nasty agenda even the normies can see. 

And mostly what the normies need to take a stand, to take action, is to feel that not only are they supporting a position that is justified and true and aligned with their values, but that there are many others out there who also support it. There is strength in numbers.

It's important to for anyone right of center to know who is really on their side and be able to spot and reject the trans-right infiltrator who wears the political right and nationalism like a skin suit to promote their non-Marxian leftist agendas. Just as the Marxian leftists did with liberalism and the Democratic party. Seeing a trend here? More on that in the next post. 

If the right is to have any hope of winning the political and cultural wars, then the non-Marxian leftists, like the left of center moderates and neo-cons must be, disavowed, rejected and expelled from the right. For as they are just as much the enemy as the Marxian leftists.

Donald Cavaioli

Waiting for The Real Progressive Liberals or Godot

It's a common complaint here in The People's Banana Empire of New York that city services suck, the cost of living grows ever higher, the trains are running worse and some categories of crime are rising. There are some local luminaries who deny the reasons why are not because we are a severely over-taxed, over regulated, balkanized, mutlicult empire run by demented progressive leftists who prize ideological purity and identity over competence. But, no, dear reader! It is that our current leadership is in fact not real progressive liberals. Yes, according to these our local pundit bloggers, the astounding wits they are, our Dear Leader, Bill de Blasio and his cadres are not in fact true, genuine, bonafide progressives but dastardly REBNY owned impostors! Impostors, frauds and imperfect implementation explains all of the past and present failures of progressivism and socialism. Not that mental giant proponents of it are delusional cargo cultists pushing a fatally flawed ideology.

Indeed, according to the mastermind proponents of the "muh real progressive liberal" cause had "muh real progressive liberals" been here, we would have achieved the promised Utopia of perfect equality in all things material, intellectual and spiritual. Choruses of Kumbaya would ring throughout the empire, white liberal "foodies" would squee like giddy school girls over the variety of wonderful ethnic foods and the trains would run on time too! For the white liberal, it would be the 1967 Summer of Love all over again but without the overdosed drug addicts and autistic hippies with weapons grade body odor, wallowing in feces and urine soaked mud. A perfect, permanent Burning Man festival without any of the downsides and in a consequence free environment. For the poorer ones- whites, non-whites and other odds and ends, it would be living in material wealth the same as the rich, white liberal, a higher status in society simply given as right and all the freestuff they can lay hands on but without having to earn any of it for themselves. Godot is more likely to arrive first.

So how do these protean geniuses of the "muh real progressive liberal" thing define a real progressive liberal? How will we know this prodigy when he appears to lead us to the Elysian fields of perfect liberalism? What the hell is perfect liberalism anyway? How will the real, legitimate, true progressive liberal accomplish all this? As I have asked the proponents in the comments sections several times, I have not received a coherent answer except that the real progressive liberal is real, and bears a resemblance to Santa Claus. And he's making a list and checking it twice and will prefect socialism at last unlike every other past, miserable failure throughout history.

But fear not, dear reader! For the precocious good liberals who truly believe in the Real Progressive Liberal Eminence coming like the Great Pumpkin are still hard at work. Building the runways in their backyards complete with cardboard boxes for the control tower and hangers so that the Great Progressive Liberal messiah shall take notice and will land there and lead us to paradise. Courage comrades!


Donald Cavaioli

The Liberal Emoter's Inconsistency and how He Squares that Circle

Ever have a debate with a liberal progressive and notice that whatever argument you present, no matter how well reasoned or proofs provided, their response is to ignore it and act as if you said something completely different? Or how they could argue against something in one case and situation and in another case, same situation, and either turn a blind eye to it or justify it contradicting their previously held position.

The reason why is simple. The progressive liberal did not actually read or listen to you in the normal sense of determining the main idea of the paragraph or follow the reasoning. No. They skimmed through and only picked out words and phrases that emotionally triggered them just as in any given situation, they only consider how they feel about it, not what they rationally think about it.

The liberal progressive does not think or reason, they emote, and their reactions and positions are based on a set flow chart of approval for who they feel is always good and disapproval for who they feel is always bad.

There are those whom the progs collectively view as good and support for whom demonstrates the liberal prog's virtue to his fellows and maintains their status in the liberal progressive herd cult. Those whom the progs collectively view as bad must be always condemned and castigated no matter the facts and circumstances, even if the bad guy does some good, also to maintain their status in the progressive group as a good person.

When the "bad guys" do something the progs collectively do not like and it is the worst evil ever perpetrated in human history and cannot be condemned harshly enough. But if the "good guys" do something bad, in fact the same action as would be in the "bad guy" case, then it must be good but only in the "good guy's" case.

It's all feels, image and keeping in the good graces of the progressive herd. Thought, reason, logic and intellectual consistency never enters the equation. The approval of the herd and the good feels of belonging to the herd cult in good standing and being seen as dedicated to an approved cause greater than the individual liberal progressive is all that matters.

So even if logically inconsistent to the point of mind destroying cognitive dissonance, the liberal progressive shifting positions and goal posts makes a weird sort of consistency when analyzed this way.

However, let's get back to the liberal progressive response to a reasoned argument not having any bearing or relationship to said argument.

When confronted on these non sequiter responses, the progressive liberal will hide behind a response of you using "dog whistles", saying one thing but secretly saying whatever the prog imagines you really mean, requiring an absurd, convoluted cryptography to discern. In fact, the prog has no acutal response and knows on some deep level his position or argument is patent nonsense. The "dog whistle" retort only makes for a puerile pseudo-intellectual cover for a flimsy, poorly thought out  position. 

What this really means is that on some level, the liberal progressive actually understood what you said and meant but his emotional programming overrode logic. He therefore uses the "dog whistle" dodge to square the circle between reason and emotion. After all, the liberal progressive ideology is perfect, the liberal prog is super smart (one gets a free 30 points added to one's IQ just for joining!) and thus is never wrong as well as always being on the right side of history- no matter what facts and reality itself says. How can they lose?

In the end, we must admit it is useless to argue from a position of fact and reason with an ontological emoter of the left and instead should concentrate on attacking the flaws of their ideological cult. Not to convince or convert the leftist/liberal/progressive which is near impossible and only rarely happens, but to sway the moderate normies away from supporting the goals and agenda of the prog cult.


Donald Cavaioli