Last night I had the chance to come across the progressive’s favorite idiot: the Democrat Frat-boy. Self described ‘moderate’ because ‘any idea could be a good idea’. Here are a couple of the more memorable exchanges:
On Black people:
Frat-boy: You know, you just wouldn’t believe what’s happening down South man. All these Republicans getting the dumb white hicks to help turn back fifty years of progress for black people. Affirmative action is the shit, man. Most of my friends in college were black and got in on scholarships, and if they didn’t get them, they’d probably be forced to sling meth back in the ghetto. They just never got the chances to get out of their situation.
Me: The thing is, before all this ‘progress’, when there was actually black-letter law discrimination with Jim Crow, socially acceptable explicit racism, segregation, banned from university etc, blacks performed better in just about every metric: criminality, poverty, school-completion, divorce, drugs, you name it. Are they ‘freer’ now?
Frat-boy: Well what do you expect, man? They weren’t allowed to do shit before, they had to ask for permission, so they’re just trying to cope with shit and they aren’t getting enough help, the school system stops them from getting funding, white people leave anytime they move into suburbs with good schools so the county runs out of money and the suburb turns to shit, the war on drugs, the whole system’s designed to make it like that.
Me: So blacks are powerless and have no agency as individuals or a group, and white people are therefore responsible for their dysfunction both collectively and individually?
Frat-boy: That’s just the kind of thing a privileged white person would say because you don’t know what it’s like to born into poverty and racism [blah blah etc.]
That’s when I knew I had won. The standard tactic of the bleeding-heart, when confronted with logic is the indirect ad hominem. He couldn’t address the question because it articulated his position in a morally-neutral logical proposition, which clearly shows it to be absurd. His only recourse was to attack my person (race, family background), because without the moral tirades, the prostration, the desperate signalling that he ‘gets it’ and is taking the fight to the man, he can’t admit that he is patronizing the very people he seeks to champion with fallacious logic.
This is a guy (I won’t call him a man) who personifies one of the most commonly lampooned tropes in the liberal media. Big mid-20’s white guy, college football scholarship, wearing a California-bear t-shirt, sipping from red cups at the house-party and bellowing with laughter at his own jokes. Yet even he wallows in guilt and atones for his sins by acting as a PR boy for the progressive agenda which not only acts directly against his personal, family and community interests, but actively humiliates him and his stereotype in every TV show, magazine, newspaper and commercial. He is ironically desperate for the approval of those who consider him at best a form of amusement, at worst an enemy to be exterminated.
There must be some serious goodies that dangle from the righteous and downtrodden that he hopes to get a hold of by these performances. How can we convince someone so easily duped that he should wake up to his senses and play for our team, even if we only appeal to self-interest? As much as I want to write off his type with disgust, surely these are the low hanging fruit that should be most readily accepting of Reaction/NRx, Tradition and HBD. Authority and consensus confer approval. How can we create parallel institutions to appeal to his need to be accepted and validated? How can we rekindle pride, dignity, honor and solidarity to young men and fight this insidious, self-flagellating declaration of support for the leftist morons who control the narrative?