Views from the Abyss #52: Cognitive Blind Spots, Psychosis, Indoctrination, Emotional Investment and Islam

Q. You have frequently made reference to people having cognitive blind spots in previous bulletins. Can you expand on what these are exactly?

A. Truth be told, the expression itself is something of a misnomer, and not as technically accurate as I would normally demand, but people are already familiar with the concept of a conventional blind spot, so the naming stuck. 

The reality is much more awful.

Why call it a 'blind spot'?

We all tried the tests to find our own blind spots when we were children, the one where we draw a circle and an X on a sheet of paper and move it around in front of our faces with one eye closed. When it's at just the right distance, the circle disappears behind a blind spot. Magic!

The blind spot was always there, it's just that it took the test to reveal it.

And that's what I always found fascinating about the test—that without it, there was simply no way to know that the blind spot even existed. Our brains do such a good job of filling in the missing information that we would never even imagine something was missing in the first place. 

The concept of a cognitive blind spot applies the same pattern to our understanding of the world at large. Imagine, if you will, that you are given one of two boxes. In it is a 10,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with no picture for reference, and it’s your job to put the puzzle together. When it approaches completion, you find to your horror that there are about 10 pieces missing, but when you look at the puzzle as it stands, you can infer from the context what the content of the missing pieces are. Or to put it another way, you don't need to see those pieces to understand the overall picture.

But you could still be wrong. Who knows what could be hiding in those missing pieces?

In this way, it makes perfect sense to call those missing pieces 'cognitive blind spots'. 

Why not call it a 'blind spot'?

I mentioned a moment ago that there were two boxes. Bad news—you got the other box, which contains nothing but the missing 10 pieces. With no picture to refer to, it’s up to you to figure out roughly where those pieces sit in relation to each other, and then to try to figure out the overall picture based on that. Good luck!

Q. That’s impossible, even for a computer!

A. Of course it is. But it doesn’t mean your brain isn’t going to try anyway. In fact, it’ll try so hard that unless you are very very careful, you won’t even be able to tell which pieces of the puzzle are real, and which pieces you imagined. They'll all look the same when it's put together in your mind.

And needless to say, anybody else looking at those same 10 pieces is going to see a completely different picture, because we have absolutely no idea what the picture is supposed to look like, and insufficient information to even hazard a legitimate guess.

Remembering that we're not in fact talking about a jigsaw puzzle, and are in fact talking about our understanding of the world as a whole, it's fairly accurate to conclude that we're all happily living in our own fantasy bubbles, oblivious to all but the very tiny number of details that we actually know for sure (if even those), but at the same time believing we see and understand everything. 

And when your entire cognitive field is one giant blind spot with tiny patches of reality hidden within, it's not hard for false, and even harmful ideas to take root unchallenged. 

Indeed, if one were predisposed to doing so, taking advantage of this weakness in others could prove both easy and remarkably lucrative.

Q. I'm not sure I like the idea of this 'fantasy bubble' you describe. Wouldn't that mean we're all mad?

A. In a manner of speaking, yes. 

In psychological terms, the idea of living in an imaginary world would be referred to as a 'psychosis'. Normally, the term would be reserved for the 'mad', but truth be known, that's all of us. Madness isn't a zero-sum game, and the only thing that makes the 'mad' different, is that their fantasies are sufficiently compelling that when visible pieces of puzzle contradict it, they tuck them back into a blindspot area. This makes them a potential danger—if not to others, to themselves.

So how can society function when we can't even agree on what is real?

Indoctrination

It gets a bad rap, but it is a valuable tool in providing impressionable children a consistent framework with which to prop up their fantasy bubbles. Ideally, a healthy indoctrination should be consistent enough that people can share a compatible set of values, flexible enough to accommodate new facts without rejecting them, but also firm enough that it doesn't crumble under scrutiny. Living in a crumbling fantasy is not a nice place to be.

Religion tends to work well in many—but not all—cases, especially those that preach and practice tolerance of the inconsequential as a virtue. An all seeing all knowing god adds an element of absolute moral authority, so what is right and wrong for one person is universally right and wrong for everyone. The framework of the religion is reinforced among communities by outward expressions of faith, such as going to church, giving disapproving looks at youngsters (with their 'rock music'), and saying "amen" whenever anything cool happens. It's also (in most cases) flexible enough to allow you to rationalise around inconsistencies in favour of emerging facts: "that explanation was obviously symbolic; it's not meant to be taken literally." Consequently it doesn't have to crumble under scrutiny, but also doesn't need to deny facts that contradict it.

Academic ideologies on the other hand—especially those of the social theory kind—work very badly. They do have the community reinforcement elements in the form of excessive "virtue signalling" and moral outrage over perceived shared slights. However, because they lack the benefit of generations of real world wisdom shaping them, inconsistencies are more likely to be rationalised in favour of the ideology, and at the expense of facts. Where did we hear about that before? And the more facts you ignore, the more out of touch you become with reality, and the more dogmatically you cling to the last crumbling shreds of the cult-like fantasy you call reality for dear life. 

Furthermore, when you remove the moral absolutism of a consistent omnipotent authority, the glass house isn’t so much built on sand, but on a makeshift raft drifting aimlessly in stormy waters. Nowhere is this more visible than in their moral relativist take on tolerance, which could best be described as tolerance of whatever is deemed tolerable at any given moment—which is about as far from the intended meaning of the concept as you can reasonably get without literally rotating your brain 180° in your own head.

Still, in the absence of god, it becomes necessary to create one, and there are always unscrupulous individuals who will take on that role for their own benefit. But that's a discussion for another day.

It raises an important question though. If academic ideologies are supposedly based on rationality (as in, a bunch of stuff that seems to make sense on paper), then why do so many end up going 'mad'?

Emotional Investment
People are biological entities, and the ways that emotional engagement shape our thinking can never be overstated.

This is why the religions that form the basis of the most successful societies promote positive emotional connections with the deity, and likeminded family and community. They are helping to fulfil an important human need, and this keeps people committed to their reality framework.

Of course, many people in such communities are sufficiently fulfilled by their connections to their families and communities that they only need to pay mere lip service to the deity, if they pay any service at all. The positive outcome remains regardless.

On the other hand though, one cannot make an emotional commitment to a sterile academic ideology. There is no joy, love or devotion to be found there, so the basic human needs have to be fulfilled in other ways. 

Camaraderie with those who live in a similar fantasy bubble is one thing, but an emotional commitment would require a degree of raw honesty that their dedication to a flawed ideology has rendered them incapable of allowing. Instead, they take the easier option of embracing the negative: anger, outrage, disgust... When they perceive a slight and call for somebody's head on a platter, that is the closest they can get to any kind of emotional fulfilment, and it only increases their insatiable hunger for more and bigger crimes and disproportional punishments.

It's little wonder therefore that fundamentalist Islam is so revered, and the misdeeds of anybody connected to it are routinely ignored, despite it standing so jarringly in the face of everything the social justice ideologues are supposed to advocate for. We've already established that they're not committed to their cause, but the cause is still their reality—it's all they have. Islam is promising them the emotional fulfilment they're not getting, and also a very firm hand so they cannot mess up their lives any further. They know, even if they can't quite bring themselves to admit it, that they would much rather spend their lives in bondage under an extremist religion straight out of the dark ages than spend another second in the swirling maelstrom of ideological madness. They would rather endure a regime of strict punishment for consistent and properly defined minor transgressions, than endure the arbitrary and chaotic wrath of their comrades because they didn't sufficiently follow the random winds of constant change. They would rather have their hindquarters fried to a crisp on an iron skillet, than be tossed around in a frying pan with the chef occasionally igniting high proof rum in their general vicinity.

That fundamentalist Islam is seen as an upgrade shows just what a dangerous cult social justice is.

Q. Wow! Is that really what's going on in their heads?

A. I don't know. The best I can do is try to piece things together in a way that's consistent with the known facts. If you have a better explanation, please let me know in the comments below...

Views from the Abyss #51: FIRST Assertion of Absurdity

Q. Since popular British science fiction franchise 'Doctor Who' announced their FIRST openly homosexual educated female mixed-race permanent companion, I see all the homophobes have started to emerge from the woodwork. Was this an intentional strategy to smoke them out?

A. In a manner of speaking, no.

Nor was it intended to silence them, because for the most part they're perfectly happy to exercise their right not to express an opinion, nor have an implied opinion imposed upon them.

This was far worse.

Some background first. We're all familiar with the Assertion of Absurdity as something of a dick (dictator) move—a political power play, a form of brainwashing, thought policing, and general social control. The Emperor's New Clothes is a perfect example of this in action: The Emperor, wishing to test the loyalty of his officials, strolls in naked one day and tells them all about the fine new suit he is wearing. His officials, understanding the way the wind is blowing, all agree that it is the finest suit they have ever seen and that he must introduce them to his tailor. He next approaches his lower ranking officials in a similar manner, to a similar end. Finally, he takes to the streets in a marvellous parade to show off his "suit", and everybody applauds and remarks on his excellent taste and style. All except one little boy, who foolishly shouts, "Why does the Emperor have no clothes on?" Everybody looks awkwardly at one another for a moment, taking involuntary steps backwards to distance themselves from the boy. The boy and his family are soon whisked away by the Emperor's guards and summarily executed for insubordination, while everyone else learns (or has reinforced) a most valuable lesson—you can either enthusiastically concur with that which you know to be horse shit, or you can be branded a traitor.

This telling of the story is of course based off of a much earlier Chinese historical event—Hans Christian Andersen clearly missed the point when he penned his own version, as the caution expressed therein is much less pragmatic in contemporary western society.

We did also run into this very same phenomena more recently when we tackled transgender advocacy, and how those who do not wish to be forced into such a dilema feel the war has been brought to them.

Q. So how does this relate to Doctor Who?

A. Thank you; I was just coming to that.

It is very unlikely that any fans of the franchise would have any problem whatsoever with the presence of such a homosexual character. We know this, because they have previously had such characters fill other major roles, and nobody particularly cared one way or the other. In fact there were enough established homosexual characters in the show that they had to specifically add unnecessary qualifiers for the sole purpose of making this one into some kind of groundbreaking milestone.

But it isn't groundbreaking in the least; no glass ceiling has been shattered, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that the last 50 years simply didn't happen, and that homosexuals continue to be deliberately excluded from having any representation at all in the film and TV industry. Furthermore, it strongly advocates for the continual singling out of homosexuals for special treatment in every aspect of their lives—whether they want it or not.

The absurdity element is that to be in disagreement with this, is the non-bigoted stance, yet is also the stance that will have you branded a bigot. You can either enthusiastically concur with that which you know to be horse shit, or you can be branded a traitor.

It is thought policing, pure and simple. The Doctor Who team are not acting in the best interests of the LGBTP community here—they are using them as pawns in a much more nefarious political move, one that endorses and asserts the most twisted anti-human 'virtues' of the political left. Fans of the show would be right to reject this.

It's becoming a remarkably frequent pattern though. Hillary Clinton was laughably set to be the "FIRST female president of the United States," (each of those words being necessary qualifiers) and those that claimed they didn't want a female president, but would have no problem if the president was female, were branded misogynists. In fact, any time anybody that isn't a straight white male achieves anything, it's branded a groundbreaking first, unless that person holds right leaning political opinions, in which case they can go to hell.

Q. Did it occur to you that perhaps the announcement was made in a wholly innocent fashion?

A. Yes. And that would be worse. That would be the Mad Emperor's New Clothes.

Unlike the regular Emperor, the Mad Emperor genuinely believes that he is wearing a fine suit. And when it comes to facing summary execution for being perceived to have the wrong opinion, life is much much easier when you have the luxury of knowing each day what the right and wrong opinions are.

All such bets are off when it comes to the Mad Emperor.

Views from the Abyss #50: Factoring Out and Suppressing Humanity

Q. First Brexit, then Trump, now Le Pen... 'Progressives' can't seem to catch a break these days. Why is it that they're having so much difficulty reading the underlying mood of their contemporaries?

A. Their greatest failing in this regard is in their constant factoring out of humanity.

Now this is by no means unique to political progressives, but it's an integral part of the many abstract 'nebulous idea space' ideologies they advocate for. In fact, it's an integral part of most liberal arts degrees as well. Little wonder people are graduating university understanding the world less well than when they entered.

Factoring out humanity in essence is a less politically loaded description of the 'Appeal to Hubris' alluded to in a previous bulletin. The idea is that by focussing on social patterns and influences, one make the rookie mistake of interpreting the patterns as being entirely predictive in nature, thus eliminating the individual agency of a sizeable chunk of the population. Naturally, this typically only applies to those whose views are not in line with those of the speaker—him and his ilk are well informed and free of bias, hence their views are the correct ones; those who disagree are merely... you get the picture.

Sometimes, the patterns themselves are insufficient to explain a given phenomena, so rather than assume that people are somewhat chaotic, what with their independent thoughts and actions and that, it's easier to just assign a blanket motive that robs them of agency entirely. 

How often did you hear that Trump supporters were simply lured in by appeals to their own hatred of anybody that's different—blacks, gays, women, immigrants—and were voting blindly based on this? 

How often did you hear that they're just angry they're not in charge anymore and want somebody to smash the system they feel has betrayed them? 

How often did you hear that they were just uninformed and had no idea they were voting against their own interests? 

If your answer to any of these is a number greater than "never", then congratulations, you have witnessed the factoring out of humanity of a sizeable chunk of the population, with a straight and sincere face. 

There are of course times when this line of thinking is acceptable and even effective, marketing being one of the more transparent examples. It's perfectly fine to target products and advertising at specific demographics, reducing your perception of their relevant agency to the influence you can hold over them, because it's the specific behaviour you wish to coax out of them that's important—the one where they give you money. 

This cannot work with governance though, because governors need to work with the governed. Reducing the people to automatons is the quickest way to mistake yourself for god. That's how dictatorships are started. Of course, laws themselves cannot be tailored to the individual, but that's exactly why the individual must always be given the upmost consideration when writing them.

All is not lost though—humanity is very robust, and will not be suppressed by abstract ideology, no matter how rational. Humanity always reasserts itself. It always prevails.

Q. Are there any other examples of humanity being suppressed by abstract ideology, only for it to reassert itself?

A. Many. One such example is in diversity quotas.

'XX% of managerial posts must be occupied by women by 20YY' is a frequently floated ultimatum. 

We can see straight away that the individual women don’t matter, and nor do the often more qualified men that are going to miss a promotion. Humanity has to play second fiddle to an abstract system of point scoring.

However, even those who would benefit from it are often quick to point out its shortcomings. It will never be universally accepted, because humanity will always reassert itself.

Another of the more recognisable situations occurs when a pregnancy is prematurely terminated.

Now I should state outright that while I take a largely pro-life stance on such things, I do recognise that there are situations where terminating a pregnancy may be considered the 'better' option, and that within reason the decision should be in the hands of those closest involved.

However, the constant romanticising of abortion as a feminist issue really isn’t doing anybody any favours. 

People who find themselves terminating a pregnancy typically fit one of the following patterns:

1. Those for whom the termination is a regrettable act, but ultimately the lesser of two evils, e.g. an abortion out of medical necessity or as an act of kindness to a child that would otherwise suffer from a birth defect or serious disability.
2. Those for whom the termination is an exercising of their right to bodily autonomy e.g. it's not convenient for the mother to have a baby right now, or she would prefer a baby by a different father etc.

Those in the first group typically turn out alright. They face the ordeal with honesty, and allow themselves to come to terms with the truth and consequences of their decision, so they may move on (as we also will).

Those in the second group are more of a mixed bag. Some end up regretting the decision later, and find a way to forgive themselves. Others don't, and it's them we will be focussing on. 

Those of them that aren't psychopaths often end up going mad, sometimes decades after the fact.

The problem is that they are presented with two conflicting versions of what happened, and are free to choose the version that suits them best.

One version is that of a commonly spread abstract ideology, which is apologist in nature. It asserts that having the abortion was empowering, that it was their body and their choice, that the foetus was not a real person—just merely a clump of cells, "what kind of life would the child have had if I’m not ready to be a mother”?

The other version of events comes from the true voice of their humanity, and is accusatory in nature. This one asserts that a literal piece of themselves died when they chose to murder their own child, that their soul is forever tainted by the stench of their heinous crime, that the blood of the innocent is on their hands, and will never be cleansed.

The first is the comfortable lie, the second is the harsh reality they know deep down to be true. 

And however much they cling to the lie, their humanity will persist; the barely perceptible tapping from the basement will increase in volume with each passing year until it becomes a mighty roar that shakes the very walls that protect them. And the longer they leave it, the harder it will be to ever open that basement door; to ever face the truth of what they did, in order that they may move on from it.

Most instead choose to go mad.

Humanity will always find a way to reassert itself, even if it kills the host in the process. 

Views from the Abyss #49: Narrative Hernia

Q. I see that a certain controversial celebrity is in the spotlight again, this time for the apparent endorsement of paedophilia, but on viewing the ‘leaked’ tapes involved, I saw no such thing. Now I understand from your previous bulletin on propaganda rookie mistakes that in similar scenarios, the only people fooled by such obvious anti-factual smear campaigns are those that are already committed to the smear—the evidence merely begs the question, so to speak. This time though, I’m seeing people and institutions from all sides of the political spectrum up in arms over it. What’s going on? 

A. Some material is simply ripe for lazy propaganda, and this is one such example.

The mistake, if one were to call it that, that our celebrity made was that he committed a cardinal virtue-signalling sin—he muddied the victim narrative.

People like to be outraged by sexual predators that prey on minors—it's one area where people from all sides of the political spectrum actually agree, but they really don’t like to think about it—and why would they? Instead, they have a very specific image of the crime in mind. 

The victim is always faceless, voiceless, passive, innocent, irreparably damaged by the assault that they were powerless to prevent. 

The adult perpetrator on the other hand is evil, active, predatory, has no sense of guilt or shame, and will do whatever he (or technically she, but not in this narrative) wants regardless of how much it hurts other people. They pluck the innocence of the young while laughing maniacally, before slithering back into the shadows. 

Nuance really doesn't make a good bedfellow of a child sexual abuse victim narrative.

In a dissimilar but related fashion, reporters from combat zones are very careful not to show you the human cost of war. Talking about a decisive victory in front of a field of strewn bloodied bodies, both friend and foe, distracts the audience from the narrative they wish to weave, and may cause some people to rethink their stances on things—and the people themselves really don't appreciate that. Nuance muddies the waters in unpredictable ways, and is best avoided when hearts and minds are concerned, especially at dinnertime.

The celebrity in question effectively showed us such a battlefield. He talked about his experiences as a victim, but rather than showing us the passive, faceless, voiceless avatar of childhood innocence we all prefer, he showed us an arrogant, pubescent, sexually curious 13 year old who was an active and willing participant in his own abuse. He even joked about it. And the perpetrator—he was the one that remained faceless, voiceless.

Of course, he was talking unguardedly, and did clarify later in the interview (a part that was edited out by many propaganda merchants) that he was indeed a victim of serious crimes, and that it had a terrible lasting effect on him. Astute seekers of truth should see this for the deeper meaning it represents—that the psychological trauma of child sexual abuse is much more complicated and much much worse than we would normally assume.

But people don't want to have their perceptions challenged when they're so much more comfortable being outraged by an abstraction. They don’t like to think about the victims of child sexual abuse as being real organic people with all the idiosyncrasies that entails. They don't want to see the human cost of the crime, and especially not at dinnertime. 

His breaking free of the unspoken victim narrative ruined some people's dinners, and only the worst kind of decadent sexual deviant, undeserving of any empathy, would dare do such a thing. Why, he's probably a paedophile himself, I knew it.

And that of course was his other mistake, if one were to call it that—the unspoken implications that his becoming an in-for-a-pound homosexual directly resulted from his experiences of childhood sexual abuse, and that the true nature of homosexuality is one of inherent perverse decadence, sits in striking contrast to the officially sanctioned narrative that ‘gay’ is a normal and healthy sexual orientation, and absolutely equivalent to heterosexuality. 

Nobody, least of all him, actually said these things, but even casual advocates of the pro-LGBT narrative are all thinking it. The Emperor has no clothes, and the little boy must pay the price for bringing it to our attention.

With all this to one side, there is a much worse crime occurring right now that will continue to go unrecognised and unpunished. The staff of the propaganda merchants involved or complicit in the editing of those tapes to enable this coordinated hit piece are guilty of exploiting the sexual abuse of children, just to score cheap political points. The same is true of every single person gleefully denouncing the celebrity over this manufactured non-issue.

Views from the Abyss #48: Musings on Common Themes

Question time—what do the following have in common: affirmative action, female managerial quotas (as well as other diversity management schemes), same-sex marriage, and open border policies for refugees and economic migrants?

Correct! These are all examples of collective self-flagellation, as alluded to in a previous bulletin.

While many would rationalise these as being examples of correcting a historical injustice, they are actually more consistent with an act of atonement for an ongoing sin.

We know this, because no injustice is actually being corrected; nothing is being fixed; nobody is being helped. The only thing such actions achieve is to administer a collective self-punishment for the guilt of clinging onto certain attitudes that are deemed now to be regressive. 

Ironically, however, enabling the continuation and proliferation of those very attitudes is the exact form that each act of atonement has taken.

To elaborate further:

Affirmative action is not necessary to correct a past injustice (slavery), it exists because many people believe that blacks are an inferior species, and cannot achieve academic or occupational success without a fast-track and/or financial leg-up. To atone for this elitist thinking, they give blacks a fast-track and/or financial leg-up at great expense, and to the detriment of those who are actually capable.

Female managerial quotas are not necessary to correct a past injustice (I dunno—patriarchy, I guess?), they exist because many people believe that women are inferior, and cannot achieve managerial success without a fast-track leg-up. To atone for this sexist thinking, they give women a fast-track leg-up, to the detriment of those that actually earned their promotions.

Same-sex marriage is not necessary to correct a past injustice (persecution of homosexuality), it exists because many people believe that gays are inferior, and all they really want is to pretend they're just like straight people. To atone for this bigoted thinking, they advocate for allowing gays to pretend they're just like straight people, and suing into oblivion anybody who thinks otherwise.

Open border policies are not necessary to correct any past injustice, they exist because many people believe that other countries are third world hell-holes occupied by vile repugnant sub-human scum. To atone for this flagrant I-don't-even-know-whatism, they invite them in in droves so their own country can be similarly turned into third world hell-holes by vile repugnant sub-human scum. Remember, don't upset them by suggesting they easily get angry and turn violent, though—they'll get angry and turn violent!

So there you have it in a nutshell. Affirmative action, female managerial quotas (and other diversity management schemes), same-sex marriage, and open border policies for refugees and economic migrants—nobody wins, and everybody else loses.

Views from the Abyss #47: Same-Sex Marriage—Prove Me Wrong

Q. Aware as I am that you have had to carefully research all sides of the debate by yourself, due to the impossibility of having a civil conversation, I can’t help but feel you’ve been a little harsh in your attitude towards same-sex marriage. What would it take to prove you wrong?

A. Harsh is not the word I would use. I’m starting to think I’m the only sane one left.

But I see what you’re getting at. And it’s for that reason that I would, as always, invite my loyal readers to come and prove me wrong. Bring facts!

And because I’m such a super helpful guy, here are two approaches you might want to take:

Method 1

First, you have to appreciate that I have not lived in the Western world since the last century, and I have also never lived in a time where somebody’s sexual orientation was stigmatised anywhere other than the playground (where literally anything is worthy fodder). When I left the West, it was well understood that marriage was between a man and a woman, everyone was perfectly happy with that, and there was no talk of changing it (none that was particularly well publicised leastways). For same-sex couples, there was such a thing as a civil union, which was able to open those last remaining doors that may otherwise be shut.

Fast forward two short decades, and to even suggest that marriage is between a man and a woman is to be name-called at best, physically attacked, stalked, and fired from your job at worst. 

Social attitudes do not naturally change to that extreme in that short period of time without a very specific catalyst, especially in light of the complete absence of any kind of public discourse. If you can tell me what that catalyst was, then it might cause me to update my thinking.

There are of course two other possible explanations that would require no catalyst. 

One is that support for same-sex marriage is nowhere near as strong as the more vocal corners of the internet would suggest. That would raise the question of why so many politicians are so keen to push through legislation, but it wouldn't be the first time they've misread the prevailing attitudes of the people they represent.

The other is that the whole Western world is undergoing a serious bout of mass hysteria.

I'm suspecting it's a bit of both, but if it's either to any extent, then you may have better luck convincing me with method 2 below.

Method 2

For as long as marriage has existed as a State sanctioned legal contract, it has been very specific about who is eligible—one consenting unmarried man and one consenting unmarried woman, both of sound mind. Most of those aspects are not unique to Western countries. You will need to first establish why marriage exists as a State sanctioned legal contract in the first place, then establish why this very specific criteria was outlined from the outset, before finally establishing what specifically has changed in the past few decades that renders this criteria no longer valid.

Beware the following pitfalls:

■ Persecution of Homosexuality

“Of course same-sex marriage wasn’t allowed in the past—homosexuality was thought of as some kind of abomination, and its practitioners were persecuted! Society no longer views homosexuality that way, so it makes sense that the marriage eligibility criteria should be updated to reflect this."

There are a number of issues with this approach.

First, it doesn’t take into account countries and cultures that do not have a history of persecuting homosexuality, but still have the same criteria for marriage eligibility.

Secondly, a country that has a history of persecuting homosexuality would especially not need to specify that criteria, if preventing same-sex marriages was the intent. The idea that same-sex couples could form a stable relationship was not mainstream thinking until fairly recently. Moreover, if a same-sex couple had attempted to marry during the persecution eras, they would most definitely not have been considered to be of sound mind.

Yet moreover still, homosexuality was legally persecuted—getting married to somebody of the same sex would have been a surefire way to get found out, arrested and subsequently jailed and/or neutered.

In short, there would be no reason to specifically exclude same-sex couples, so the reasoning behind specifying an opposite sex coupling is far more likely to be related to the nature of marriage itself.

■ No-Fault Divorce

“Since no-fault divorce has been a reality, divorce has skyrocketed, and the sanctity of matrimony is pretty much meaningless. At this stage, why not just let them marry?"

Ah yes, the old 'in for a penny, in for a pound’ appeal. The observation about no-fault divorce is certainly a strong argument for an ending of State regulation of private relationships, but the rather uncharitably paraphrased ‘It’s already broken, so it won’t matter if we break it a bit more’ approach as a matter of legal policy never works out well, and it’s a very weak line of reasoning. You would do yourself no favours bringing it to this discussion.

■ Hospital Entry

“Now that same-sex partnerships have become mainstream, there are situations where without same-sex marriage, somebody could be hospitalised, and their life-partner won’t be given access to their hospital bed. That doesn’t sound very fair to me."

It doesn’t sound very fair to me either. The hospitals should probably revise their access policies. Don’t they know what year it is?

So there we have it. Come at it then—prove me wrong! 

Views from the Abyss #46: 'Transgender Advocacy' and 'Why Trump Won'

Q. I thought that Trump was pro LGBTP? Didn’t he say that Bruce Jenner could use any bathroom at the White House that he wanted?

A. He did indeed, but I think he went a little further even than that.

Trump, according to his public image, is pro-American, and that includes its LGBTP citizens. He also demonstrated perfectly that age old right-wing virtue of ‘tolerance of the inconsequential’. To the extent that something doesn’t affect him (or anyone else) directly, he’ll happily turn a blind eye, regardless of his own personal thoughts and feelings on the topic.

But that is where transgender advocacy has encapsulated the cause of the significant blowback that has been taking place over the past year—and will no doubt continue for the foreseeable future—the blowback itself encapsulated by the expression ‘Why Trump Won’.

For some years now, policies and social attitudes have been changing—arguably for the worse—at such an alarming rate that satire is struggling to keep up. Many have found these changes to be a reflection of an encroaching insanity, but to the extent that it was possible to do so, they turned a blind eye to it. Live and let live, so to speak.

But advocates of the transgender movement, as with so many other identity movements, made a fundamental error in judgement—they overstepped an important boundary by a very wide margin.

You see, if a man decides/feels otherwise compelled to wear a dress and call himself a woman, and vice versa, then that is their business. If they want to be known by a different name, then that is between them and the people they interact with. This can be tolerated.

But when they begin demanding that everybody in the whole world—the vast majority of whom they will never even know exist—start referring to them by their own choice of gendered or ambiguous pronouns, in private, and try to enact laws to enforce this, well then we have a problem. By requiring each and every one of us to either voluntarily and privately validate something we may believe to be an untruth, or risk becoming a pariah, these narcissistic lunatics have unwittingly denied us our fundamental right to mind our own damned business. The tolerance stops here.

They brought the fight to us, so now we’re going to fuck them up.

And that, as they say, is ‘Why Trump Won’.

Views from the Abyss #45: The Lenin Paradox

Q. Having read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, I'm lead to concur that real Communism has never been tried. Does this mean that if done properly, it could actually work?

A. No. In fact, one of the things we can learn from the antics of former Communist dictators is that even though those societies were actually examples of State Capitalism, they still allow us to conclude that Communism doesn't work.

I call this the 'Lenin Paradox'.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx was very specific about the circumstances under which true Communism would come about. The way he described it, the polarisation of the classes was inevitable, and you would eventually end up with a hand full of people who own everything, and everybody else who have nothing. The everybody else in this equation, clearly having had enough of that sort of nonsense, spontaneously rise up against the few, and the rest is whatever the opposite of history is—the one that describes things that didn't happen; I don't know... CNN?

In fact, the circumstances he described sound exactly like a Communist dictatorship.

Sorry proletariat, you had your chance and you missed it.

Capitalism 1, Communism 0.

Views from the Abyss #44: Left vs Right Revisted

Q. Just the other day, you painted quite an elaborate picture of the political spectrum. Could you simplify it a little?

A. I can do one better than that. After having given the matter some thought, I've found several points of potential contention, and decided to completely reframe it.

First, it has to be remembered that labels matter; choice of label significantly influences the way that people think about things. The same action will be interpreted differently depending on the label applied to the actor.

Secondly, it must be understood that a stable civilisation cannot exist without prioritising the recognition of the fundamental irregular organic humanity of its citizens. This is why successful societies place individual liberty as their most cherished value to be protected above all others. When freedom is the default, any number of caveats may be introduced to restrict that freedom for the sake of peaceful co-existence, providing they can reasonably be justified. People will accept them as responsibilities that must necessarily go with the freedoms.

So with that said, I would describe the political spectrum as follows:

There are two binary political leanings, with no absolutes and no middle ground. These, we will provisionally refer to as pro-humanity and anti-liberty. The pro-humanity camp can be further subdivided into two broad groups—advocates of the status quo and advocates of evolution.

Advocates of the status quo broadly believe that their civilised society is just fine the way it is, and that unnecessary change will make it worse not better. Advocates of evolution on the other hand broadly believe that while their civilised society is indeed very good, it could still be improved upon. Both sides agree that their civilisation is for the most part just great, they just have differing opinions on where to go from there.

On the other hand, those who are (often unwittingly) anti-liberty believe that civilisation as it exists is largely overrated, and should just be scrapped and begun again from scratch. And guess what—they know exactly how to go about it. Spoilers: It doesn't end well. In fact, their own attempts are so fragile they need to be held together by duct tape and guns.

Such attempts at non-organic civilisations fail precisely because they deny the fundamental humanity of their citizens, replacing its nuance and complexity with simple equations. "Communism would work, if only people would (insert equation here)," is the first step down a short spiral staircase into chaos. There are many common ideologies that fall into a similar trap—how many can you think of?

So now that the camps have been established, we can start bringing in some familiar labels so that people know where they stand.

Pro-humanity advocates of the status quo fit rather nicely into an existing label, and that is 'right wing conservative'. I doubt many would argue with that.

Anti-liberty advocation, on the other hand, is evident in most forms of totalitarian governance. These invariably represent an expression of current left wing values taken to their logical end, so to label them as 'left wing' seems reasonable.

And that leaves our pro-humanity advocates of evolution. Under the currently accepted political spectrum, they would be thought of as 'left wing', the 'liberal left' (despite not being liberal), the 'progressive left' etc., but frankly I find it an insult to group them in with the lunatics described above. No, they are pro-humanity, so that puts them much closer to the 'right wing conservatives'. I therefore suggest they be given the new label of 'right wing progressive'.

Now what you may notice here is that both moderate sides of the currently accepted political spectrum are now on the same team. They don't have to be enemies anymore. So when anybody tells you they're left wing, ask them if they are insane. If they answer that they aren't, you can tell them that they are actually right wing. Let me know how that goes.

Views from the Abyss #43: Ego in the White House

Q. Many are concerned that Donald Trump's primary motivation to become the President of the United States is to satiate his enormous ego. Is there any truth in this?

A. Certainly. Ego is a powerful motivator, and there's no evidence to suggest that his ego does not factor into much of what he has done.

Q. Oh... Well... I mean... That was kind of unexpected. This is a common talking point, and I was assuming you were going to tell me how it was unfounded and that.

A. Not at all, but is it really the worst thing in the world? Let's take a look at the implications.

One of the greater fears about a new President is that he merely wants to wield the power of office to get rich, and scratch the shoulders of grateful billionaire friends by putting policies into place and using military might to benefit their globalist interests.

We already know that Donald Trump is not that kind of President? How? Because if he wanted to get rich and have beneficial policies put into place, he could do that far more effectively as a billionaire real estate mogul with Hillary Clinton in the White House. And in becoming President, he funded his own campaign, offloaded all of his business interests into the capable hands of his children, took an enormous pay cut, and even offered to do the job for free.

Also, he shunned all those grateful billionaires, and spent his first weeks in office fulfilling the actual promises that he made to the people of America. The seat of the Oval Office was still warm from the former president's unemployed backside when he started signing executive orders to that end.

So what aside from ego could his motivation possibly be?

Q. Perhaps he just wants to make America a better place.

A. Yes, I'm sure it's really that simple...

But an important point to remember is that that his entire campaign revolved around a single promise to "Make America Great Again". Do you think it will elevate his ego, or damage his ego, if he does indeed Make America Great Again?

Q. Elevate it, I guess...

A. Indeed.

In fact, I don't think people are crediting his ego with nearly enough influence. If it's powerful enough to get him into the White House, do you really think that he will be satisfied merely being remembered as the "45th President of the United States of America?"

Q. What are you suggesting?

A. He doesn't want to merely be 'A' President, he wants to be 'THE' President. He wants to be remembered as the greatest President of the United States to ever take office. He wants his grandchildren to see bank notes coming into production with his face on them, decades after he's dead. He wants history books to fondly hail the Trump years as the new renaissance, an era of global peace and prosperity. He has a proven track record of working hard and working smart to achieve whatever he puts his mind to, and there's no reason to think that this time it will be different.

Furthermore, he knows that he can't achieve that kind of reputation with social media alone. To do it, he has to really make America great again, for all Americans!

Views from the Abyss #42: Rookie Propaganda Mistakes Revisited

Q. In a recent bulletin on Rookie Propaganda Mistakes, you emphasised that the would-be propagandist should never assume his target to be a fool, or more delicately crafted words to a similar effect. I can't help but feel that there is a counter strategy hiding in there somewhere. Care to weigh in, in your own inimitable way?

A. There is indeed a direct counter strategy, which among intellectual equals on a fair playing field would be to "Never let your opponent believe that you are their intellectual superior".

Of course, in 21st Century social and political discourse in the western world, few are charitable enough to ever believe that they could possibly be on the wrong side of the debate, which allows the stakes to be set a little lower, so it is sufficient to merely "Never let your opponent believe that you are anything more than a simple buffoon."

And if you wish to see this strategy in action, one need look no further than the newly elected President of the United States, Donald J Trump.

While he implies that his primary social media account is his tool for bypassing the dishonest media who have a proven track record of misrepresenting him at every turn, it is also one of the chief tools of his counter strategy. Why? Because 140 characters eliminates nuance of meaning, so whatever people read into his posts reveals more about them than him. And because they already think him a simple buffoon, this is confirmed to them 3 or 4 times a day. The rest of us don't put too much weight into any given post, preferring to wait and see, so it is an extremely targeted strategy.

So with the press perpetually convinced that he is a simple buffoon, what do they do? They let their guard down, and end up doing exactly what he wants them to do.

Case in point, he made the (paraphrased) claim that many Americans did not support his travel restriction order because the media refused to report on all the terrorist attacks going on all over the world, so the threat of terror did not seem real. How did the media respond? Report after report after report about all the terrorist attacks going on in the world that they totally reported on. "Oh no, we totally did report on this terror attack last week that killed X many people, and we certainly reported on the terror attack two days ago. In fact, here's a fully detailed list of all the terrorist attacks over the past year that we reported on, in gory horrific detail." The media is now so awash with talk of terrorist attacks, that support for his order has subsequently increased, just as he intended.

Trump 1, Media 0.

What is more fun though is to watch how he plays the longer game. Even from before the election, he has frequently alluded to mass election fraud taking place in certain States, and how it subsequently cost him the popular vote. He never produced any evidence though—which means that we can be sure that absolutely no evidence exists, if one assumes him to be a simple buffoon, as the mainstream media constantly does. Still he keeps reasserting the claim though; what a silly man, worried more about his ego than running a country.

Of course, there's no evidence of his lack of evidence either—that much was only assumed because he didn't elaborate on it. An intelligent person would keep that hand close to their chests until it could be used effectively, but we all know that he's not that clever, don't we?

So what evidence could he possibly have? Well, I'll bet that Scott Foval—the disgruntled ex-employee of the DNC, who was fired after bragging on a leaked tape that he had been rigging elections for decades—has plenty that he could provide to the President and any investigative committee, if he was sufficiently motivated to do so, say, by being hung out to dry by his former employers.

Time will tell how this pans out, but I'm sure that long before (if ever) the mainstream media realise that it was never about his ego, he will have exactly what he wanted.

Views from the Abyss #41: Social Expectations

While navigating this tricky modern world of ours, where everybody and their favourite uncle has access to some flavour of untested at best, but outright laughable for the most part social theory at their fingertips, it's hard to find any contemporary social commentary that does not include expressions such as 'society expects' or 'society teaches' as an explanation of some isolated phenomena or other. 

Maybe it's the reason why less women choose to go into STEM fields, or men choose not to wear dresses, or why groping is still something of an issue on Japanese trains, or why little Johnny killed himself rather than spend the next 18 years paying child support to a child that isn't his (if only he'd gone against his social programming and embraced his emotions, he could have survived to have his income perpetually garnished the way that real men do...)

If you find yourself excessively irked by this trend, and cannot quite place your finger on why that is, then join me once more in our mutual quest for truth.

The very concept of society is, of course, a social construction, for want of a better word—and yes, I really want for a better word, because this one is way too loaded already. 'Society' has no objective existence, and manifests only as a subjective perception inside the mind of the observer. It is therefore incapable of expressing agency or independent thought of any kind, and is certainly not in a position to be expecting or teaching anything to anybody.

Now, if one were to be charitable, then it's not hard to see what the intended meaning is—it’s a kind of intellectual shorthand that is heavily rooted in actual social constructionism, but those making the assertion are frequently unaware of this detail. To them, it's just a rather lazy way of saying that many such thoughts and behaviours are to some extent learned through interaction with others.

But beware the passive voice, because it is the road to selective abandonment of personal responsibility. And it is used very selectively indeed. How often do you hear about "rocks being thrown" and "windows being broken" in the news, when the agency broadly agree with the sentiments behind the riot, only to switch to the active voice—"man arrested for throwing rocks, breaking windows"—when they're in ideological opposition to person in question? More often than not, and realise it or not, you will have noticed it.

But returning to the initial claims about "society's teachings" though, it should come as little surprise that this is also heavily rooted in collectivism. Invariably it is used to describe some manner of perceived problem, and by taking the focus off of the individuals involved, it becomes a society-wide issue that affects everybody, and one that can only be solved by fixing everybody.

If the idea of 'fixing everybody' frightens you, it is because you are sane. If you are a 'progressive' ideologue though, it is part of your pro-chaos toolset, and but one facet of your longer term plan of total global domination.

Never let them win. Ultimate responsibility must end with the individual.

Views from the Abyss #40: Rape-Related Musings

Q. It was claimed on a police procedural TV show that "legally, a woman who has been drinking cannot consent," implying that sex with a woman who has been drinking is inherently illegal. Something doesn't sit right with me about it. Please help me work out what it is.

A. Of course it doesn't sit right—you are a pro-civilisation non-ideologue that does not believe that women are inherently inferior to men, nor that such an assertion should be validated by law. Shameless expressions of chauvinism like that quoted have no place in the 20th Century, let alone the 21st.

Furthermore, if we follow the train of implication, and do a little jiggery pokery with the entirely arbitrarily chosen (if we were to be charitable) ‘active’ and ‘passive’ actors to reframe the claims, we reach some interesting conclusions. Come, friend. Join me on this quest for truth.

• Women (in the US) who are legally minors may not consume alcohol, and therefore providing them with alcohol is a crime. ↔ It is illegal for female minors to drink, but only another party will be punished.
• Women who are legally minors cannot consent to sex, and therefore sex with them is a crime. ↔ It is illegal for female minors to have sex, but only the other party will be punished.
• Adult women who have been drinking cannot consent to sex, and therefore sex with such women is a crime. ↔ It is illegal for women who have been drinking to have sex, but only the other party will be punished.
• Consumption of alcohol, for all intents and purposes, reverts women to the status of legal minors, and minors are prohibited from drinking. ↔ It is illegal for women to drink, and, well, they're not going to be the ones getting punished are they, obviously.

The initial premise is an invention of TV, of course, so the conclusion is purely academic, but you’ll be surprised how often this apparent legal truthoid is parroted. 

Do not let it infect our courtrooms.

Q. I always wondered why it felt as though a part of me had died every time I heard that stated on TV. Thank you for clearing that up. Semi-related, is the suggestion that women take precautions for their own safety against rape a form of victim blaming?

A. If you listen to feminists, then yes it is.

If you listen to anybody that is pro-civilisation though, then no it isn’t. Crime and safety isn’t a zero-sum game; it is possible for a rapist to be entirely to blame for a rape, and for the victim to be responsible for their being in that situation.

However, an often overlooked scenario—which is far more common than one might think—is where the ‘victim’ is responsible for their being in the situation, and the ‘rapist’ is not to blame.

Let’s begin with two simple questions:

1. Have you ever been in a situation where you have consumed alcohol, and are later surprised to discover that you said or did things of which you have no recollection?

2. Have you ever been in a situation where alcohol was consumed by somebody else in your presence, and you are later surprised to discover that they have no recollection about certain things they said or did during that time?

If you answered ‘no’ to both questions, then the following will not make much sense to you I’m afraid, and you're also in a minority—most people will have answered ‘yes’ to at least one of the two questions. 

For typical adults, the ability to reliably form accurate long term memories is one of the first things to suffer impairment when you consume alcohol, and while you may be behaving and thinking in a completely coherent fashion as far as you or anyone else is concerned at the time, you may well end up simply having no recollection of it whatsoever. 

This is not in the least bit unusual.

Fast forward to a college party. Everybody is drinking as much as they can. A man and a woman who are both fairly inebriated are, as far as they're both concerned at the time, fully coherent. They’re flirting together, and they end up in a bedroom enjoying consensual sex. No problems there… 

Until the morning. The woman wakes up, finds herself in bed with a stranger, and has no idea how she got there. The man is none the wiser either.

Both might reasonably conclude that they had a bit too much drink, and obviously hooked up with somebody that appealed to them at the time, even if it wasn’t necessarily a choice they would have made while sober. An awkward few minutes pass, and they part ways (hopefully) never to see each other again.

However, all too often—that is to say, entirely too often—this is not what transpires. The woman—frequently with help from her feminist counterparts—ends up making no distinction between having no recollection of events and being flat out passed out on the floor. Therefore, no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn, than that the man she woke up with raped her while she was unconscious. 

The man—who also doesn’t remember anything—is certain that’s not the sort of thing he’d do. The feminists remind him though, that as a man, he’s an animal by nature, so that’s absolutely exactly the sort of thing he’d do, whether he wants to admit it to himself or not. 

Likewise, everybody else at the party was inebriated, and has similarly little recollection of anything much that went on, but they also think he’s not the sort of person to take advantage of a woman that’s passed out on the floor. 

The feminists tell them that they are rape enablers.

But they couldn't have enabled rape, because there was no rape. No sexual activity occurred while either of them was ‘passed out’. She may feel like a victim, but the so called ‘rapist’ isn’t guilty of any crime, because no crime occurred. The encounter was entirely consensual in nature—it's just that nobody remembers it.

And the man will be arrested anyway, judged guilty, and spend nowhere near enough time in prison to satiate the unquenchable thirst for human blood that the feminists crave, but way too long to preserve any kind of sanity, or ever hope to lead a normal life again, which will already be impossible because his life is now objectively ruined by having his photo, name and the word RAPIST appearing together on the front page of every news publication in the country. You're welcome.

Views from the Abyss #39: Brainwashing

It occurred to me that during the most recent American election cycle, half the population—supporters of one presidential candidate—were convinced that their country and values were under attack, because they assumed the worst about certain non-American people who were fundamentally 'different' to them. 

Meanwhile, the other presidential candidate backed by the entire mainstream media ensured the other half of the population were also convinced that their country and values were under attack, by encouraging them to assume the worst about their own countrymen, who were fundamentally 'different' to them. 

Only one of these positions had any substantial validity in accordance with observable fact. 

Pragmatic free thought 1, Brainwashing 0.

Your move.

Views from the Abyss #38: Political Centrists

Q. You implied rather directly in a recent dispatch that there are no political centrists. Can you elaborate on that a little please?

A. Certainly. There are no political centrists.

If you take my recent bulletin on Left Wing vs Right Wing philosophies at face value, it becomes obvious that the concept of centrism is inherently flawed, because it would require that the left and right be equal but opposite positions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A better way to understand the two positions, is that anybody who believes in civilisation is right wing. Some of them additionally advocate for the admittance of certain left wing (nebulous idea space) values, but ultimately they want the values to be incorporated into right wing civilisation. They are part of the right wing majority.

People who are not right wing, wish instead to abandon civilisation and force entire populations of individuals to change every facet of their lives in accordance with an ever changing interpretation of a single value ideology. By force, because it is the only way it can be done. Such people are insane, and should never be listened to—precisely because they themselves cannot listen, cannot be reasoned with, and would sooner murder you than drink with you.

That said however, intellectual honesty is inherently non-partisan—or ‘fair’ as the rest of us call it. Consequently, those that focus their attention on the intellectual honesty of a political advocate, rather than the policy being advocated for, are often thought of as political centrists. They aren’t, but it's an easy mistake to make.

Q. Doesn't this all rather depend on people adopting your stance on Left Wing vs Right Wing philosophies though? Does it not concern you that some might disagree on this interpretation?

A. Not in the slightest, no.