When White Liberal Prophecy Fails: Cognitive Dissonance and the Liberal Mind

Cognitive Dissonance theory might be more important in explaining the Left’s mindset than we appreciate. Although frequently invoked by mainstream conservatives to superficially skewer liberals’ incoherence and hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance should be applied more broadly and explored more deeply. According to psychologists, the dissonance produced in the mind when holding mutually exclusive beliefs is actually nothing short of a form of mental trauma. Facts and opinions which challenge, for instance, one’s self-identity or long-held conventional wisdom can, say experts, result in agony for the afflicted, producing a feeling of desperation akin to starvation or intense thirst. Unsurprisingly then, the resulting discomfort can push the sufferer to great lengths of irrational and extreme behavior in order to obtain relief[1] (Margaret Heffernan, Willful Blindness, pdf here).Understanding cognitive dissonance, therefore, may go far in explaining our opponents’ aggressiveness and, given the growing unreality of today’s society, their increasingly toxic and desperate behavior.

A basic theme in cognitive dissonance literature is that the brain cannot stand conflict. So hard does the brain work towards resolving it, it’s neural circuitry will actually employ faulty reasoning in order to shut down distress.[2] When presented with contradictory positions, it will, in effect, blind itself to them, for instance, by eliminating the new conflicting belief and clinging to the challenged one. Referring to this characteristic of the mind as our “totalitarian ego”, Psychologist Anthony Greenwald says, much like the thought-control and propaganda devices depicted in George Orwell’s 1984, the mind’s biases are firmly enslaved to the ego’s greater central design (for instance, one’s self-image as a humanitarian and morally righteous person, etc.[3] This would explain much of liberals’ hyper-defensive reaction to evidence regarding racial differences, for instance, and their aggression toward purveyors of such evidence.

Political psychology professor Drew Weston has found that the same brain circuits activating biased reasoning are actually the same ones activated in drug-addicts when getting a fix. Like drug-addicts, the cognitively conflicted will do anything to return to a state of comfort and euphoria.[4] The minds of the conflicted can employ numerous stress responses when, for instance, one’s long-held belief or self-image is challenged, such as avoiding the conflicting evidence in question (and any possible sources of such evidence); resorting to self-denial and magical-thinking[5]; even intentionally misremembering or suppressing past experiences i.e. previous episodes of ethnic tension, etc.[6] And when confronted by ideological opponents, the afflicted can resort to convoluted, fantastical arguments as well as hostile or nakedly diversionary ones, such as making dismissive, personal attacks on the opponent’s motives.[7] No doubt many readers have experienced such episodes from liberals before, even to the point of visible neurosis, hysterical anger, or even threatened or actual violence.[8] As Cognitive Dissonance expert Margaret Heffernan says, “we are prepared to pay a very high price to preserve our most cherished ideas.”[9]

The case study which established Cognitive Dissonance theory bears many of these hallmarks. In the 1950s, psychologist Leon Festinger became intrigued with a news story about a doomsday cult whose leader claimed she’d received messages from a UFO about the impending flooding of the Earth. Festinger was struck by the question of what would happen when a deeply-held belief was disconfirmed by events. Posing as a believer, he began attending the group’s meetings, including what was to be the “final” meeting on the eve of the world’s end. When no flood came, the group’s founder miraculously received a new message: that it was because of the group’s virtuousness that the world had been saved. As he wrote in a book about the case, When Prophecy Fails, far from being unswayed, the group felt joyous that their belief system stayed intact and became even stronger in their convictions.

In another early case, Festinger profiled the Ifaluk tribe, a primitive Micronesian people, which lived by a firmly held belief that people are inherently caring and good, all the while, as Festinger observed, the children in this culture were particularly prone to “strong overt aggression.”[10] Instead of changing their belief about the nature of people (or young people, at least), however, the Ifaluk reconciled the two contradicting cognitions by introducing a new cognitive element: that it was “malevolent ghosts” which make their children act the way they do.

Case studies elsewhere show cognitive dissonance afflicting high-achieving people and even to the point of creating self-harm or harm of others. In 1950s Britain, for instance, health authorities were presented with conclusive evidence that X-ray technology at the time was having carcinogenic effects on fetuses. Instead of changing course, however, the authorities fought the findings and persisted in using the technology without alteration. Even decades after the findings were made, UK medical authorities maintained the argument that doctors must have X-rayed only those fetuses that were destined to get cancer; a position so clearly desperate (how could doctors have known such a fact beforehand?) that it shows, in the words of one researcher, just how much “no one likes to be told they’ve been doing something wrong all their lives.”[11]

Although blocking out evidence disruptive to one’s sense of self can, in theory, also apply to White advocates, it’s important to note why it’s largely a White liberal phenomenon. White liberals operate in a constant state of neurotic discomfort and confusion. From noticing wildly different behavioral patterns of, for instance, Blacks in public and the workplace, seeing disparate levels of Black achievement in school and professional life, and experiencing instances of anti-White intimidation and violence, etc., for White liberals, nearly every day is a challenge to their worldview which can be summed by the belief that racial equality and diversity are, now and forevermore, right and good. This doesn’t apply to White advocates. Although no doubt extensive, our daily discomfort is nonneurotic, and relates to real, non-self-contrived troubles, such as worrying for our future progeny or lamenting over a healthier past. Our concern about the future is well-founded, to say the least.

Those researching the foundations of cognitive dissonance often cite the work of the late-Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner when explaining the various types of bias that can occupy the mind. A pioneer of what’s now referred to as positive and negative reinforcement, Skinner conducted experiments in the 1930s wherein he placed a hungry rat inside a box with a lever which, when pressed, delivered food. The rodent soon learned to associate the action with the reward. Different colored lights were then introduced, with the rat receiving the food only when the correct light was on. If the rat pressed the lever when the correct light was on, it received food; if it pressed the lever when the incorrect light was on, it received an electric shock. Gradually, this had the effect of teaching the rodent to associate certain stimuli (the different lights) with pleasant or unpleasant things and respond to those stimuli by performing a particular action. As Skinner and other psychologists later showed, such behavioral conditioning could be used on humans as well.

Applying it to personal views and opinions, psychologist Judson Brewer says that the more positive and negative reinforcement is repeated (such as praising and scolding, in the case of children), humans could be made to gradually internalize certain social views or develop, as he says, a ‘lens through which to see the world’ or a bias towards seeing the world a certain way[12]:

Over time… the more we get used to wearing a particular set of glasses, subscribing to a particular worldview more and more, we forget that we are wearing them. They have become an extension of us—a habit or even a truth… our viewpoints become so habitual that we don’t question our reflexive, knew-jerk reactions.

Such engineering of viewpoints, however, doesn’t appear to graft onto White advocates very well. Whatever the reason, White advocates carry the critical faculties and independence of mind needed to avoid the conditioning they received in school or elsewhere; whether it be a general ability to separate education from miseducation, a natural aversion to opinions based on faith, or an innate tendency (ethnocentrism is influenced genetically) to recoil from ideas hostile to their group-interests.

Apart from reinforcement-learning during development are the broader institutional and social foundations for cognitive dissonance. Heffernan points out the importance this area of support played in the X-ray case, specifically that the doctors’ intolerance of the countervailing findings was likely due to their industry being dependent on the status quo.[13] Moreover, she notes that the doctors were in positions of great, institutional power, resulting in their colleagues and subordinates likely reinforcing, rather than questioning, the official line.

That similar institutional foundations undergird White liberals’ individual worldviews needn’t be argued in detail. The equality-diversity paradigm reigns supreme over every major institution in the country as well as in the broader Western world. Numerous sources (the mainstream media being one) are at work daily to provide the reinforcement, assurance, and social pressure, White liberals need to stay on point. Needless to say, this type of support for cognitive dissonance does not apply to White advocates. We operate no institutions nor depend on any institution which relies on or reinforces our beliefs (in fact, no such institution exists).

We also don’t subscribe to beliefs deemed respectable, virtuous, or because of who or what they’re associated with (in fact, some of us routinely try to disassociate ourselves from many of those who actually share our beliefs).

Importantly, Heffernan also notes the doctors’ worry over their self-image as health experts as a basis for their rejection of the conflicting X-ray findings; that is, any public perception of them having hurt, rather helped, patients in their care. This concern for self-image analogizes well with liberals who, of course, preeningly view themselves as righteously doing good for society (i.e., fighting for social justice, equalization of outcomes, the oppressed, righting historic wrongs, etc.); efforts which would be all for naught should they accept countervailing truths.

Moreover, notes Heffernan, accepting the truth would have forced the doctors to admit to the harms they had unleashed on the public, which in liberals’ case would be the White public — the harms caused against Whites through discrimination in hiring and school admissions, denigrating White flight and ignoring the plight of the White working class, erasing White identity and historical achievement, etc.

By contrast, we, as White advocates, don’t hold beliefs that would make the world better if they were true. We’re simply too intellectually serious not to accept reality as is, knowing that by relying on dishonesty, only harm can come—As AmRen’s mast head on its old print edition used to read (quoting Thomas Jefferson): “There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.” Unlike White liberals, we know it’s in the best interest of those we care about for them to fully understand the world they live in.

There are two dissonance-inducing stress responses acknowledged by analysts which I think deserve greater emphasis: the mind’s ability to adjust the importance of challenging cognitions; and its ability to add on new cognitions so that challenging ones become outweighed (such as the ghost-narrative in Festinger’s Ifaluk case). These strategies may go far in understanding those White liberals (there are bound to be some) who do not betray their observational faculties and internally acknowledge innate race differences, but who, nonetheless, zealously pursue the equality-is-right-diversity-is—our-greatest-strength worldview.

Regarding the former, “honest” White liberals may adjust downward the importance that IQ disparities play in society (thereby reducing their discomfort), telling themselves, for instance, that they can be overcome through better diet in childhood, or investing more money in education, etc.[14] This would work to lessen the dissonance between the realities they privately acknowledge and their desired, more convenient, equality-diversity worldview.

On the latter, similarly situated White liberals may add on new cognitions, for instance, by telling themselves that, regardless of the reality of race, White advocates wish opprobrium and even depredation on non-Whites and they must, therefore, be countered. To do so (however correct White advocates may be) is to help to defeat ugliness and evil in the world. Again, the mental anguish of having to deal with uncomfortable facts (and becoming like us) is therefore resolved.

Although paper-thin and routinely challenged, the White liberal paradigm rests on a solid foundation; one which we all must strive to understand. Ignoring or blocking out inconvenient facts regarding race draws numerous psychological and emotional benefits in today’s society, including social and financial ones. By contrast, the race-realism and White advocacy we voluntarily pursue provides us with no such benefits; only the bracing satisfaction of living in accordance with the truth and doing what’s right.

Although their paradigm will develop cracks as the level of contradiction to reality in society increases, the fear and anguish caused by being on such intellectually shaky ground might actually keep much of it intact for some time, producing more denialism and dysfunctional thinking, more hysterical calls and campaigns for our moral exclusion, and more desperate measures in general.


[1] Willful Blindness, found here. (“Anything or anyone that threatens that sense of self produces pain that feels just as dangerous and unpleasant as hunger or thirst. A challenge to our big ideas feels life-threatening. And so we strive mightily to reduce the pain by ignoring the evidence that proves we are wrong, or by reinterpreting evidence to support us.”)

[2] https://www.sightline.org/2008/03/13/drewwestenresearch/ (“Not only did the brain manage to shut down distress through faulty reasoning, but it did so quickly – as best we could tell, usually before subjects even made it to the third slide. The neural circuits charged with regulation of emotional states seemed to recruit beliefs that eliminated the distress and conflict partisans had experienced when they confronted unpleasant realities. And this all seemed to happen with little involvement of the neural circuits normally involved in reasoning.”)

[3] http://www3.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F/Greenwald.pdf

[4] Willful Blindness, here.

[5] Id. (“We studiously avoid seeing, and remembering, those things that may cause us discomfort. In the same way that we tend to gravitate toward people who are like us, our eyes—and our minds—focus on information, objects, ideas that confirm our sense of self… Both are stress responses.”)

[6] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2014.925459 (“People often misremember the past as consistent with the present. Recent research using an induced-compliance paradigm has revealed that cognitive dissonance is one mechanism that can underlie this memory distortion… Overall, our findings replicate the effect of dissonance on memory distortion and, further, show that the effect generalises to other dissonance-inducing situations.”)

[7] Willful Blindness, here. (“As Gayla had uncovered W.R. Grace’s knowledge of the town’s contamination (Libby, Montana, where an asbestos mine infected thousands with mesothelioma), she’d discovered… so many of her friends and neighbors did not want to know anything she had uncovered. ‘People would cross the street when they saw me coming,’ she recalled. ‘They shunned me as though I had something contagious. People said I was crazy or that the lawyers were giving me kickbacks—and there would be people whose own family members were dragging around oxygen tanks. ‘One line of defense was, people would say: If the doctors though there was something wrong, they’d tell us’… On the other side though is the fact that people are like ostriches… Gayla was getting hate mail.”)

[8] https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cognitive_dissonance (“In Northern Ireland, for instance, the image of Protestants or Catholics as inhuman allows for actions [such as violence] that otherwise might not be perpetuated…This all means that a Protestant or Catholic who otherwise may strongly believe in the notion that ‘Thou shall not murder’ may participate in terrorist activities. Although these two cognitions are dissonant, this dissonance can be overcome by creating new cognitions (‘they aren’t human’ or ‘they’re barbarians,’ etc.) or by emphasizing one cognition at the expense of the other.”); Also see,

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._6;_June_2011/14.pdf (“The cognitive dissonance theory developed by Festinger (1957) inspired a great deal of exciting research for the next two decades. It challenged reinforcement theory by showing that people are not simple reinforcement machines, rather they think and make justifications (Aronson, 1992). Besides, it challenged psychoanalytic theory, specifically the notion of catharsis of aggression (Aronson, 1992). Most psychologists believed that if people released their anger, they would feel better, however, cognitive dissonance theory proposed that it would not reduce aggression. On the contrary people would try to find justifications for their hostility such as derogating the victim, and thus it would lead to more aggression.”)

[9] https://www.philanthropysouthwest.org/sites/default/files/resources/Willful%20Blindness.pdf

[10] Festinger’s landmark An Introduction to the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, here “(As a result of this third belief, the knowledge of the aggressive behavior of children is no longer dissonant with the belief that people are good. It is not the children who behave aggressively – it’s the malevolent ghosts. Psychologically, this is a highly satisfactory means of reducing the dissonance, as one might expect when such belief are institutionalized at a cultural level. Unsatisfactory solutions would not be as successful in becoming widely accepted.”)

[11] Willful Blindness, here.

[12] The Craving Mind, page 7, here.

[13] Willful Blindness, here: “[I]nstitutional power is a particularly seductive form of social support. After all, if you are in a position of tremendous institutional or political power, then not only are you hugely confirmed by the colleagues who share your beliefs, but questioning them would threaten everything: job, position, reputation, future career.” Also see, page 14 here (Festinger noting the role society plays in keeping dissonance at bay: “The more people who hold a belief in common with you, the greater the amount of consonance that is built up and the less dissonance that is encountered when there is a disagreement.”)

[14] https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/cognitive_dissonance (“Another way to overcome cognitive dissonance is to alter the importance (or lack thereof) of certain cognitions. By either deciding that ice cream is extremely good (I can’t do without it) or that losing weight isn’t that important (I look good anyway), the problem of dissonance can be lessened. If one of the dissonant cognitions outweighs the other in importance, the mind has less difficulty dealing with the dissonance — and the result means that I can eat my ice cream and not feel bad about it.”)

20 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    This article does a sterling job in explaining the increasingly irrational behavior by White Liberals, which is rapidly approaching paranoia with a number of US Senators and Congress men and women.

    Yet, I see some hope here, for I know some die-hard Liberals who, while clinging to their contradictory theories, are at heart truth-seekers, and are finally shedding their liberal theories (albeit with considerable agony) in favor of truth. I’ve often thought that the very best ethno-nationalists are former Liberals who overcame their own convictions. This is followed by a humility which breeds a strength that I envy.

    For those Liberals who cannot let go of their cherished fallacies I am reminded of the little boy who was digging a hole to get to China. When an adult came by and the lad told him what he was doing, the adult said ‘Son, you cannot get to China that way’. So, the child simply gritted his teeth and began digging faster.

  2. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Sexual differences in cognitive dissonance on vital issues may be key to understanding psychological weapons of mass destruction. When facing menopause, a woman who has been indoctrinated to trade her fertile years away has little evolutionary advantage in adjusting her world view to reflect reality — particularly if she has no nephews or nieces in her environment. Men at least have more time during which they can gainfully face reality with the accumulation of experience and resources.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      What fraction of humanity has a world view reflecting reality?

      Only the jewish Objectivists [except for Leonard Peecock], and perhaps the Scientologists, except for Miss Cavage. . .

      Less than 1%. Hells Angels have honed objectivity to a fine art…

      Jack Rosenberg [Werner Erhard] seems to be totally sane. “Do whatever you have to do to get whatever you want.”

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        A moderately charitable interpretation of “adjusting her world view to reflect reality” is “adjusting her world view toward reality”. Critique such as yours seems uncharitably Frankfurtish.

  3. Rob Rankin
    Rob Rankin says:

    Cognitive dissonance is present in the results of desegregation and affirmitaive action over the past 50 years. Those programs of cultural engineering have failed to produce the utopian society of equality and achievement for most minorities, esp. blacks. To reconcile this dissonanace white and Jewish liberals have substituted the ghost of racism, or rather used it as a whip to explain the dissonant producing results, or lack thereof, in the scholastic and economic under-performance of blacks and other minority groups with lower Mean IQs than whites. In other words, their plans put into place in the 60’s and early 70’s are not bearing fruit, are back firing….so it must be because of systemic racism etc, in the majority population, the European Americans.
    Superb article Mr. Gladwell. You provided me with psychological terms that further hone my understanding of the past 50 years.

  4. Jud Jackson
    Jud Jackson says:

    Brilliant Article. It reminds me of Michael Savage’s remark that “Liberalism is a mental disorder”.

    • pj dooner
      pj dooner says:

      Savage is a jew supremacist con-man who worries that US liberals aren’t useful enough to Israel, in fact, that’s what drives all these anti-immigration “right wing” jews. Look up Steinlight, in the mid 1990s he put out the word that Third World immigration to the US should be stopped because he fretted that these people couldn’t be brainwashed quickly enough to support israel and jews in general. But the jews have created a monster that they don’t have full control of and maybe there is some cognitive dissonance among some of them tooas they are remaining hellbent on destroying the white race at all costs.

  5. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    In AmeriKwa you have two choices from the Lamestream Media and….:

    Left Wing Marxism
    Right Wing Marxism

    Left Wing Corporate Fascists

    • jerry
      jerry says:

      Charlie, you certainly don’t understand fascism as it is the polar opposite of rabbi marx’s Talmudic communism. It is not left wing, right wing, fascist or socialism it is Talmudic communism period.

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        Fascism is the unholy marriage of big business and government. Left Wingers and Right Wingers have promoted the unelected CEO and his leftist minions as cabinet members to rule over the unwashed Goyish. If you color outside the lines and have independent thought the Fascist Corporation will wash you from the bread lines and drag you through the gutter to insure you never work again and that your domicile and earnings are yanked from your hands and given to the Enwirdz as compensation.

  6. JRM
    JRM says:

    “On the latter, similarly situated White liberals may add on new cognitions, for instance, by telling themselves that, regardless of the reality of race, White advocates wish opprobrium and even depredation on non-Whites and they must, therefore, be countered.”

    This is an excellent observation. Two of the indispensable “myths” in the Liberal weltanschauung are Lynching in the American South and the “Holocaust” in Europe. Both subjects are relentlessly preached as types of (implied) inevitabilities wherever a White sense of group identity prevails.

    Therefore we see results like educators who know quite well the difficulties in teaching black children, but feel a moral imperative to defend the entire establishment fantasy of racial equality. To them, even acknowledging a difference in black capabilities could invite unthinkable cruelties at some time in the future.

    Past events (real, imagined, or exaggerated) are relied upon more and more to keep the populace in ideological harmony with its masters. Some (the honest ones, not all by any stretch) of these Liberals are simply conditioned to believe that recognizing racial differences is too dangerous to even be briefly entertained. White Liberals are a self-policing group par excellence.

  7. paul hart
    paul hart says:

    Psychology is 90% crap and is even worse when mixed with half-baked neurology. One cannot talk scientifically about cognitive dissonance without a clear notion of what a belief is and when two or more beliefs are contradictory or in tension. This turns out to be extremely difficult and there is no agreed definition. For example, does a procrastinator really believe he is going to do the unpleasant chore tomorrow? What if he has not made the required preparations? Again, if Jones believes he will go to heaven after death why is he afraid of death? Again, suppose I believe that my wife is absolutely faithful, yet feel very uneasy when she is in the company of another man. There are innumerable cases where our beliefs are in tension but it would seldom be possible to derive an outright contradiction. Instead of the pretentious expression “cognitive dissonance” it is better to stick with the plain English idioms “rationalization”, “wishful thinking”, “hypocrisy”, “self-deception”, “illogicality”, etc. Psychology, like other social sciences, is mainly a way to cloak alien value judgments in the appearance of scientific finding.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “Psychology is 90% crap and is even worse when mixed with half-baked neurology.”

      How did you come up with that number? And what is the 10% that’s worthwhile?

      How are you defining “half-baked neurology”?
      Would Psychology do better if the neurology was completely baked?

      “Psychology, like other social sciences, is mainly a way to cloak alien value judgments in the appearance of scientific finding.”

      What’s an alien value judgment?

    • Ihmc
      Ihmc says:

      Maybe it’s 95% in fact, and, as it’s bound to be in all fields of culture, nigh-100% if we look at mainstream psychology/psychiatry.

      But the likes of Jung, Neumann, Hillman make up for all the junk.

  8. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    I can’t be the only person to notice that the US has been the leading country for violence with millions of deaths worldwide. Yet there seems to be ‘cognitive dissonance’ in the US media world.

  9. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Most Libby-dibs are actually not against racial differences. So-called ‘liberalism’ as it exists today is not for equality. It’s for the special protection, promotion,and worship of the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, and homos. So, the notion of racial differences becomes a problem ONLY WHEN it works against the celebration of one the three holy groups.
    Does anyone really think there would have been all the brouhaha if James Watson had said that Arabs are maybe smarter than Bolivian Indians? The fact is most people don’t care about Arabs or Bolivians. Or suppose he said that, based on his observations, blacks are smarter than whites. No one would have been upset because it flatters blackness. As blacks are holy, we must praise them and idolize them. No one is upset if someone says blacks are better dancers, runners, singers, or have more sexual prowess. No one gets upset if someone says blacks are most musical or most creative. People get upset only when discussion of differences suggest at blacks being inferior in some way or another. Notice how there is constant bitching about ‘not enough black quarterbacks’ but no one complains about ‘all running backs are black'(or ‘not enough white runningbacks’). There is constant bitching about too many whites/Asians in colleges but no fuss about too many blacks in NFL or NBA or pop music.
    Same with Jews who must be praised at every turn. (Even Tru-Semitic criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as ‘antisemitism’. Tru-Semitism would be truthful discussion of Supremo-Semitism, or Jewish Supremacism that rules America) Libby-dibbism’s high regard for Jews isn’t about equality. It’s about how Jews are so wise, so great, so smart, so insightful, so industrious, and so inspiring. Indeed, MOST liberals are silent about the anti-BDS laws that are clearly against classical liberal principles of free speech and freedom of conscience.
    No one complains that Jews, at 2% of the population, are way over-represented in elite positions. No one invokes ‘disparate impact’ about Jews are obscenely over-represented in the highest echelons of media, academia, finance, and etc.
    And no one complains about how homo men dominate fashion, even though it’s mostly about women’s clothing. Imagine that, homo men dominate fashions of what women should wear. And women are now supposed to bend over backwards to pretend that some guy with a wig is a ‘woman’, even deserving to take part in female sports.
    SO MUCH FOR EQUALITY.

    Just like nature abhors a vacuum, the mind abhors equality. Even the passions of those who claim to be for equality usually gravitate to those who are MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. People naturally look up to stars, heroes, great men, giants, and etc. Even libby-dibs are into celebrity worship, fame, wealth, and glory. Just think. Athletes and entertainers have proven NOTHING MORAL; all they’ve proven is they can run faster or hit harder or sing better or act well. But so many Libs look up to rock stars and athletes as founts of truth and wisdom simply because they’ve demonstrated superiority in some ‘cool’ field. Idolatry trumps ideology among the Libby-dibs.
    Indeed, the reason why Jews, blacks, and homos are especially favored by Libby-Dibs is because of demonstrable superiority in certain fields. Jews have proven themselves in intellect, letters, science, math, medicine, humor, and etc. Blacks have proven themselves in sports, pop music, oratory, and sexual prowess. Homos have proven themselves in the arts, fashion, design, entertainment, manners, style. All those are about demonstrations of certain forms of superiority. That is why Libby-dibs, who are all closet-elitist, worship those three above all others. (And the reason why non-whites want to be with whites is because they find white people to be most attractive. Black men want white women over black women, and Asian women want white men over Asian men. Blacks and Asians claim to be for ‘equality’, but their behavior and preferences are very hierarchical.) But no one much cares about American Indians because they have no demonstrable superiority. Even though one could argue that the ‘original sin’ of America is ‘genocide’ of the Indians, there is hardly much impassioned talk about them. The general ‘progressive’ attitude is ‘just give them some casinos and forget about them’. Given that mass immigration from the Old World led to the ‘genocide’ and displacement of Indians, one might think that the ‘white guilt’ Narrative would associate immigration with genocide. For sure, Zionist immigration to Palestine led to Nakba pogroms and ‘genocide’ of the Palestinians. Then, how come there is no talk of immigration = genocide? Because Jews are special, therefore ‘more equal than others’, and trump Indians and Palestinians. Since immigration to the US and Palestine did such wonders for the oh-so-special Jews, we are supposed to celebrate immigration. What is good for Jews trumps what is good for Indians or Palestinians. As for what historically happened to Indians and Palestinians? Who cares? They’re a bunch of mediocrities and losers, not special like Jews, blacks, and homos. This hypocrisy of the Libs really need to be exploded.

  10. Imch
    Imch says:

    It’s truth what the human brain (with some room for gender and individual differences…) can’t withstand, rather than contradiction.
    Two contradictory untruths will still be held together with relative ease.
    Truth disarrays everything in a regular human mind, for it is irreconcilable with most of said mind’s tasks.

    It’s like trying to put a car in reverse while it moves forward, a mechanical impossibility.

Comments are closed.