Leftism at (Rock) Bottom
The liberalism of "Simple" Will Stancil
Many have a misconception about leftism: that it lacks any principles, or that it is wholly determined by contrarianism - but this is not at all the case. Leftism, and its various forms of modern liberalism, are and always have been a set of principled positions (or, really, one principled position). That these ideologies seem contrarian is the naïveté of not just Right Wingers, but of all those who take reality itself as a given.
As a sort of fortunate timing, arguments about the case of George Stinney have begun to make the rounds once more. This debate has cropped up in nearly perfect timing to demonstrate the principle to which I refer: the defense and absolution of any and all non-White people. Not only are the used images completely fake — the most common is a 2x2 grid, where pictures 2-4 are stills from a movie (the only real photo is the black-and-white photo in the first slot, showcasing Stinney’s 1,000-yard stare) — but the argument is a case of outright denial of reality. This occurs in the most common liberal fashion: motivated reasoning.
Stinney’s teacher recalled that, on the very day of the murders, Stinney attacked a girl with a knife. The only opposition to the historical facts regarding the Stinney case come from Stinney’s immediate family: for example, his sister providing him an alibi in 2014 - 70 years after the incident.
The St. Petersburg Times1 reported on March 27th, 1944 (4 days after the discovery of the bodies) that “George Junius” (George Stinney) had led officers to the murder weapon.
The Milwaukee Times2 reported the same on March 25th. Notably, the “historian” to contest the case, George Frierson, has no professional background or formal education - a fact which would be an instant point of debate if a Right Winger raised an inversely analogous case. Frierson argued in interviews that an unnamed person gave a deathbed confession as to the guilt of another — also unnamed by Frierson — party. But perhaps more important is the supposed “vacatur” of the conviction; which was approved by Judge Carmen Mullen. Mullen vacated the sentence not on any evidence which exonerated Stinney, but upon an argument that he had not received a fair trial because his access to an attorney — according to the 19-years-later post-1963 (Gideon v. Wainwright) requirements — was violated, and thus his execution was wrongfully undertaken. Judge Mullen also argued that Stinney’s confession was likely coerced - the evidence for this claim was not presented.
Of course, the claim makes the rounds every few months that Stinney was wrongly convicted, and that a later trial exonerated him. But this is neither due to ignorance, nor to lying - all forms of leftism rely on one single principle: the hatred of the well-turned-out, and the consequent approbation of any and all non-White groups. That is to say: the panegyrizing of all “minorities,” and the ravishing hatred of Whites (and males). We have all presumably seen Stancil’s meltdown at Steve Sailer’s rhetoric, despite a complete absence of polemics in Sailer’s posts; this is not atypical, but rather a holistically demonstrative example of the liberal mindset. Stancil has taken to moralizing, hand-wringing, and classic leftist sermonizing. We can simply watch a short overview of Stancil’s argumentation line: from “intellectualism,” to whinging preachy mewling.
Will starts off under the veneer that Sailer is an idiot and a “professional racist,” and that to flee from a cohesive data-driven argument is “anti-intellectual.” And yet one can glean the moralizing undertone, that his own point is “correct” (in what sense?) because it is not “racist:”
By 2 days later, Will has entirely given up this facade; he is now kvetching that those who follow and agree with his interlocutors (adversaries?) do not fit into his cordoned-off liberal worldview, while belittling the attempt to examine any sort of statistical data:
By 3 days later, Will has abandoned any shred of intellectual semblance; he is not only distilling Sailer’s point to “superior and inferior races,” but he is also giving us an insight into his own insecurity:
By 4 days later, he has taken to inane pedagoguery, and to browbeating those who have derived a “[morally] incorrect” position — in response to a post referring to a supposed objective (i.e. empirical) position from the given data (he has not yet presented any data of his own):
And though this article is beating a horse, that horse is yet alive and well: that the left-wing is neither dishonest nor honest; neither contrarian nor conformist. A wise man by the moniker of Mystery Grove once argued that leftism is, at bottom, when “ugly deformed freaks make it illegal to be normal then rob and/or kill all successful people out of petty resentment and cruelty.” A wise sage by the name of Jens argued (more or less) that leftism can abandon all its tenets, except the worship and acquittal of non-Whites; contra-normal sexuality; and the elimination of White people. One might argue that all the rest is “window dressing.”
Liberals — leftists rightly called, because there is no differentiation in this fundamental hatred/praise principle — are not “without beliefs.” They do not lack “real convictions.” At the heart of all leftism is a deep-seated desire to give poor, drug-addicted, non-White criminals more money and to ideologically erase their culpability - and to retain criminal restrictions only for successful, healthy, White people. My point being: liberals do not care whether George Stinney was innocent, nor do they care whether IQ is hereditary. Liberals care only about the moral derivations which stem from their ultimate premise - which I cannot overstate or repeat enough, is nothing but a hatred of Whites and the well-turned-out. That being well-turned-out may correlate with being White is a wholly alien and secondary thought; because either of the two (though almost always both in concert) create the inferiority complex which drives leftism. One simple demonstration of the fact that these two traits are not wholly inseparable is the hatred which leftists possess towards Japan - though being an intelligent, creative, and relatively healthy society makes Japan essentially White to a leftist.
We can look at a few points of relevant data (something that liberals like Will have not) to understand the thoughtless talking points which are often discussed. The correlation (or R2, more precisely being the coefficient of determination, from -1 to 1) between poverty and criminal tendency, for example, is quite high: sitting between R2=.3309 to R2=.5953 for various environmental differences and crimes3. However, liberals only care about this fact insofar as they can use this talking point to absolve poor (non-White) people of crimes. They are quick to dismiss the correlation between IQ (or AFQT, used somewhat interchangeably) and income: R2=.464. Granted, this is not a peer reviewed source - though this doesn’t seem to be an issue when the socio-moral weight is on the side of a liberal.
But one can further make the point that education is significantly positively related to income5, and IQ is related to educational attainment at R2=.646. I admit that much of this is sloppy, as I am not a statistician; nor do I have a sufficient battery of sources to examine past their paywalls. However, these are my attempts at merely providing some kind of figure to give a perspective to the obviously-evident and well-supported conclusions which are widely accepted by relevant statisticians - something which Will has not attempted, nor will any liberal. Instead, liberals will moralize about how examination of hereditary IQ is “racist” (as Will does), and implicitly reveal their own value judgments of lower IQ - such as assuming that Roma IQ indicates an “inferior race.” I am not here to debate whether Will’s value judgments are correct or incorrect; you can make that judgment yourself, without being browbeaten by a preachy schoolmarm.
However, on the rare occasion, a liberal will try to point to hypothetical explanations such as the presence of lead in the water of poor (and majority black) neighborhoods: the correlation with IQ being R2=.04847. But in truer leftist fashion, of course, Will resorts simply to obfuscation:
If a liberal refuses to ever make the leap from correlation to causation — even a soft causation — then they are knowingly shooting the feet out from under all of their “arguments.” They are not doing so unknowingly. Assuming that any liberal is familiar with any of the relevant facts in any debate, then they still possess no desire to engage with said facts. Will doesn’t want to address the heritability of IQ (roughly 50%8 in a conservative estimation), nor do any other liberals. It is nearly impossible to derive any causation in a sociological phenomenon, other than from the persistent existence of a consistent and reasonably explanatory correlation; and liberals will always use this fact to their advantage, when it so suits them. But even if we assume that hereditary IQ doesn’t have sufficient empirical evidence, all other explanations (such as the oft-attempted lead-in-the-water gloss) fall wholly flat.
Those who are too simple to engage with any evidence on the matter are content to moralize while they spew impuissant posturing about statistics (without providing any counter-argument, let alone analysis):
But they will always inevitably shed their thin demeanor of “intellectualism,” and revert to shrill whinging about “bigotry” and “morality” (for example, refusing to engage with Sailer directly linking the raw numbers in reply):
And Will most certainly falls into the category of those who cannot engage with any evidence. So instead of engaging with Sailer, he has catfights with anon accounts, to whom he can flash his neutered credentialism:
But make no mistake: Will is not a lolcow because of any special or unique trait - but rather because of the doggedness (and potentially the penchant for humiliation rituals) with which he continues to engage Right Wingers. The way in which Will’s mind operates is identical to all of the rest of his leftist cohort. He is wholly uninterested in “facts,” or “evidence” - he cares only for those talking points which can further his worldview, as all leftists do.
The way in which Will engages Right Wingers is unique only in that, rather than simply blocking them all at the first sign of disinterest in his moralistic anguish, he seems unable to realize his own plight:
Every single person would rather be operated upon by a Johns Hopkins educated White doctor born to rich yuppie parents, than by a Keck USC educated non-White doctor who was convicted of a Bronx gang shooting, yet was hired due to Affirmative Action. I am not claiming these are the only two archetypes, but to even delineate between these two circumstances is supposedly “bigoted:” not because there is any sufficient argument against the objective merits of the preference, but because it does not suit liberal sensibilities. And I also grant that many leftists do not possess the requisite psychosis to truly hold their beliefs with conviction. They are more typically just weak-willed and feeble-minded pushovers who have allowed themselves to be berated out of those impulses which stem from the obvious conclusions of reality.
Yet even those who experience severe enough psychosis to hold their positions with a deep-willed conviction are still only pushovers. All that is required for them to begin to flounder, to sputter, to curse, and to cry (because this is all they are capable of doing) is to not care. This is what infuriates and tortures Will (and ilk) so.
The idea that the views which they form their lives around and mentally torture themselves with can simply be debunked — and more importantly, be consequently ignored — is agonizing. All Right Wing belief starts with a kind of Faustian bargain; to shed the facade of “having a normal one;” to throw off the yoke of “just being a DECENT HUMAN BEING;” to trade the thin guise of social “respectability;” to shed the shackles of socio-moral grousing. Their hatred of the good will eat itself alive: it is mere ressentiment, all the way down.
All you have to do is stop caring.
Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and Educational Achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13-21.
"The way in which Will engages Right Wingers is unique only in that, rather than simply blocking them all at the first sign of disinterest in his moralistic anguish, he seems unable to realize his own plight:"
He doesn't know that he only has two hundred and eighty days left.
Expect more leftists, who have been shielded from, quote, "agony", the past few years by the Biden Administration to start losing it in a similar, or in an even greater way than in 2016.
So tired of suffering these fools. So much energy spent on denying reality. So much effort on suppressing the truth.
Bipoc supremacy must be stopped