Gay Patriot Header Image

Red Pills for Everybody

Posted by V the K at 9:08 am - May 10, 2018.
Filed under: Liberalism Run Amok

Homo author Bret Easton Ellis (not that being a homo is relevant to his point, but given the theme of GP’s blog, it has been noted) thinks normal people are really getting fed up with SJW horse-scat and a big snapback is coming.

“As someone who considers themselves a disillusioned Gen-X’er, I think there IS a backlash brewing against leftist hysteria,” Ellis told Observer over email. “What I used to semi-align myself with has no answers for anything right now, just constant bitching and finding ways to delegitimize an election.”

I don’t know if he’s right. I hope he is.

You know how for years, the pundit class has decried how the right was become narrower and narrower because, supposedly, conservatives were demanding ever more stringent demands for “purity.” But this exact phenomenon is really, literally-not-figuratively happening on the left, and those same pundits seem pretty okay with it.

As the Overton window in media, academia and Hollywood shrinks—ejecting conservative voices like Kevin Williamson, while opposing centrists in the vein of New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss—that on the right grows.

Share

11 Comments

  1. “disillusioned Gen-X’er” is redundant.

    Comment by Cyril J. — May 10, 2018 @ 10:14 am - May 10, 2018

  2. Both extremes need to be in check at all times. Right and Left both have ugly extremes, so it’s a no-brainer that, should one run away with itself unchecked, the other naturally follows to cause a major retaliation.

    I suppose that is also why the “smarter” opportunistic types try to boil us frogs slowly… all these strategies need to be carefully observed, measured, and told on, freely and openly. And with the banner of liberty, let everything be seen in the light, by all.

    Comment by RGB — May 10, 2018 @ 10:21 am - May 10, 2018

  3. Ellis isn’t in a position of perspective to see movements of people & obviously doesn’t understand normal human behavior. No one is “fed up”. But the constant barrage of Commie hysteria has been more than noticed by Trump’s electorate. My perspective as a puppeteer & a Johnny Appleseed informs me so. Only slight sarcasm intended. I was right about the ’16 election cuz I ignored polls & instead kept track of 100+ separate groups across the country. Their mindset and intentions.

    The people that matter are ready to mobilize at the appropriate time. They, we learned 10 years ago of the importance of midterms. Remember.

    Comment by Hanover — May 10, 2018 @ 10:40 am - May 10, 2018

  4. Neither the left nor the right elects the POTUS. The middle does.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — May 10, 2018 @ 11:02 am - May 10, 2018

  5. I haven’t lived the Reagan years in this country, and obviously the media I was exposed to were probably already 90% bs back then.

    But I’m curious:

    let me guess, the polarization during president Reagan’s election paled in comparison to president Trump’s, correct?

    Comment by Cyril J. — May 10, 2018 @ 11:32 am - May 10, 2018

  6. He has a good point but I’m suck of the whole red pill references. It’s so stupid.

    Comment by Pawfurbehr — May 10, 2018 @ 11:57 am - May 10, 2018

  7. This is why they say the alt right is inevitable for everyone except single moms & skanks.

    Comment by Steve — May 10, 2018 @ 1:33 pm - May 10, 2018

  8. I don’t think so Steve…

    Comment by Pawfurbehr — May 10, 2018 @ 1:50 pm - May 10, 2018

  9. V the K writes:

    You know how for years, the pundit class has decried how the right was become narrower and narrower because, supposedly, conservatives were demanding ever more stringent demands for “purity.” But this exact phenomenon is really, literally-not-figuratively happening on the left, and those same pundits seem pretty okay with it.

    It is all about morality being torn down by moral relativism.
    ——-
    [I posted on this in the Homeless post. I am bringing it to this thread:]

    The purest of reasoning that is bolstered with facts will not create morality. One can be perfect in one’s reasoning and have a university of facts and remain amoral and even be immoral. One may be an atheist and a nihilist, but being such forces the person to be a moral relativist, if the person pretends to care about morals at all.

    To be moral, one must accept morality as a higher power. That means an obedience to morality. Moral relativism operates away from morality and provides an excuse or reason not to be moral.

    There can be no disagreements concerning morality if absolute morality does not exist. Being self-aware and indignant is not morality.

    Pious value statements do not create morality. Value statements and virtue signaling are temporary efforts to make oneself praiseworthy. They do not substitute for morality.

    Moral relativism denies morality. Denying absolute morality places the denier in the position of being an absolutist. Political correctness is not a moral imperative; it is an absolutist power play.

    For example, Planned Parenthood says abortion is good and pro-life says abortion is bad; morally, abortion can not be good and bad at the same time. There is no “slippery slope” between good and bad. There is only hypocrisy.

    Moral relativism is a form of excuse-making for those who want the comfort of being amoral or even immoral.

    Hypocrisy in morality is wrong. Immoral. A sin. Choose your comfort word.

    Morality does not “encourage.” It states an absolute. It is not a matter of choice. Only moral relativism opens the flood gates to making choices concerning morality.

    Hypocrisy is posturing about being moral while doing the opposite. Practicing moral relativism is the game played by the amoral or the immoral and it is nihilistic.
    —————

    V the K notes that “supposedly, conservatives were demanding ever more stringent demands for ‘purity.'”

    The conservatives were (and are) merely standing up for morality.

    The people on the left are NOT stringently demanding “purity.” They are screaming hypocrites who are cleaning up after themselves. They are shoveling back the shit of moral relativism which has piled up to their knees with no way to escape acknowledging the stench from their nihilistic romps.

    I see no reformation or enlightenment overwhelming the moral relativists. They are clueless absolutist statists.

    Progressives huddle up with Vanity Fair, Vogue, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The WaPo, The NYT and the MSM and cluck and scold and chatter as if they have some sort of set of principles. The great Progressive moral relativist Hannah Arendt coined a phrase in concern to Adolph Eichmann and the Nazis. She said they were infused with the “banality of evil.”

    Well, guess what. In the world of Good and Evil, moral relativity is the banality of evil. I return to the words of Hannah Arendt (whom, I believe, did not understand her own deep conservatism which she masked as a darling of Progressivism!)

    “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”

    “Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet–and this is its horror–it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world. Evil comes from a failure to think.”

    ― Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

    Comment by Heliotrope — May 10, 2018 @ 2:55 pm - May 10, 2018

  10. @5 – Cyril – it’s been some years now but there was leftist hysteria during the Reagan/Thatcher years. We were told that Ronnie and Maggie hated children, poor people, and were hankering to push the nuclear button.

    Since Reagan didn’t wring his hands about AIDS at every opportunity, he was known for wanting us homos dead. It didn’t matter that funding for research into a poorly understood syndrome was flowing early on and that Reagan’s surgeon general mailed AIDS info to every household in the US didn’t matter a whit.

    Prominent Democrats described Reagan as an “amiable dunce”. Like ‘W”, a dunce that handed the left its hat at every chance – that’s how smart they were.

    The difference, however, was that the populace wasn’t as polarized as it is now and normal people heavily discounted what the loony left told them and the mainstream media, while mostly anti-Reagan, seldom lent the loony left credibility.

    The average person *liked* Reagan as the outpouring of grief when he died demonstrated. Later presidents will be mourned (more or less) but I doubt that people will line the streets for miles all over the country waving flags for them.

    Remember: Reagan was a popular two-term governor in California of all places.

    Comment by KCRob — May 10, 2018 @ 6:13 pm - May 10, 2018

  11. The average person *liked* Reagan as the outpouring of grief when he died demonstrated. Later presidents will be mourned (more or less) but I doubt that people will line the streets for miles all over the country waving flags for them.

    Thank you for these insights! That’s really nice to read that.

    Comment by Cyril J. — May 10, 2018 @ 6:32 pm - May 10, 2018

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.