Women and men

Elder Oaks made an offhand observation in General Conference that I disagree with. Now, this doesn't mean that I'm questioning the veracity of prophets, seers and revelators, merely that I think an offhand political reference he made was mistaken. There's an old joke, which is funny because it's true; Catholics believe by doctrine that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, although none of them really believe that. Latter-day Saints believe that the prophets are just men, subject to frailties and error, except when under the explicit direction of the Spirit (and even have the example of the 116 pages right there in first few sections of the Doctrine & Covenants to prove it), but none of them really believe that either. 

Elder Oaks believes, as have many other prophets before him, for that matter, that the Constitution was a divinely orchestrated document, set up among righteous men by divine intervention, who had had scores, if not hundreds, of generations of preparation to be exactly the kind of people who would establish such an order, specifically so that the Gospel could be reestablished in America just a few years later. I believe this too. Elder Oaks also believes that some of the later amendments, like the expansion of the voting franchise to women and Fake Americans was inspired. I absolutely do not. I think the original Constitutional premise of only allowing franchisement to those who had skin in the game, i.e, property-owning male citizens, was an inspired situation, and feminism all the way back to the women's suffrage movement, was Satan playing on the envy and covetousness of the descendants of Eve to demand what had been given to Adam; dominion over the Earth. Righteous dominion, to be sure. We've been carefully warned of unrighteous dominion, and it's easy to translate dominion into unrighteous dominion if you're not very careful, very thoughtful, and very caring of the women and children under your care. But the caution against unrighteous dominion is in no way meant to be a call to abdicate our righteous dominion; in fact, such should be seen as a cowardly and unworthy act for any man, especially one who holds the Priesthood of God.

Before I begin, a taste of the data. I personally am prone to dialectical arguments, although I know that most people are incapable of being convinced by dialectic. As Aristotle himself observed thousands of years ago, there are those who are incapable of recieving instruction, refering to people who only understand rhetoric, or emotional dialogue, rather than dialectic, or factual dialogue. So, I present to you this small sampling of the data. Not as a comprehensive thing, but as a place to start.

https://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2020/06/fall-of-empire-thy-name-is-woman_30.html 

Women's role is both of supreme importance and a source of satisfaction for most women. Ever since women have coveted and started encroaching on the role of men, not only has society had a rapid decline in every measurable aspect, but we've seen especially the rise of anxiety, depression, and other mental/emotional maladies, especially among women. Especially among big-city, career-driven women who have rejected the role of women and tried to embrace the role of men. To quote Madeleine Dahlgren, an anti-suffragette and a woman of keen insight and wise counsel, "The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. … The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. The special advantage as a safe advisor to man that woman holds at present arises entirely from the neutral ground she occupies in the political world. … The fact is, women reason less and feel more deeply than men. … Take woman out of her proper sphere, and in place of man's precious and true guide and best coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy."

For those of you limited to rhetorical speech, who find that emotionally triggering, all I can say is read the article. It's long, but worth it. And even if you don't, ask yourself if her prediction hasn't completely come true. Yes, it completely has.

Anyway, here's a bit of rhetorical stuff, cribbed from a comments of an article posted by Vox Day. The author is a woman, and she gets it just like Madeleine Dahlgren did. Women and men are simply different in many respects, and because of that difference, expecting them to slide into and out of each other's preferred roles and to do so successfully is complete rubbish. It's disrespectful not just to men to suggest that women can replace them, but also to women, who are indirectly told that being a woman isn't good enough; they need to be Fake Men to be fulfilled, etc. Read the following and think about how that has impacted our society. How has it impacted our freedom? Our social and political and legal landscape?

Women are naturally prey animals; they naturally, usually unconsciously, look for protection. The chatting, the 'being social' with a man from whom they are TAKING something (his time and effort, his protection, the possibility of him being hurt letting HER escape) is part payment for his 'offer' to her.

How do women deal with fear? NETWORKING! By looking to those around them for support and help and 'a group.' Being alone, being shunned or cast out of the tribe MEANS death. It's why women are so easily swayed by their milieu (and thus the destruction of our nation)!

So, by chattering with her protector-escort, she is ensuring his attention on protecting her, else he might wander off and leave her unprotected. And, 'charming' is how women work to get their way' again: consciously or not.

And yes, women are ALWAYS scared. Ask your peers: does a man EVER EVER think to himself, before going down the drive to his mailbox, if he is safe to do so? Even in many dangerous areas; it NEVER crosses him mind. NO woman ever thinks about going down the drive to the mailbox after dark without thinking, however fleetingly, of her safety. Even IF she lives in a safe-ish White area! Men NEVER get this about women's minds!

Alison Armstrong, a good educator, talks about one of her co-ed seminars, where she asked the men to hold up their hands if they have felt physically threatened in the past year. Some hands go up, but few. Okay, if you men have felt a physical threat in the past month, leave your hands up. Fewer hands still up. How 'bout this past week. No hands.

Okay, women: hands up if you have felt physically threatened in the past year. Nearly all hands go up. Past month? Only a few go down. Past week, still only a few go down.

Alison then tells the men: LOOK at how many hands are still up, for having felt physically threatened in the past week. This is not something wrong or strange about women. This is how woman are BUILT to feel. You men generally have no conception of being afraid pretty much most of the time. Nearly all women do!

Think that's stupid; start asking women around you. See if they'll just head out of the house for the mailbox at night. See if they leave a store, at night, at dusk, more and more during the day, withOUT checking their surroundings. Do NOT assume women feel the way you do. Prey vs. predator.

I hope by pointing it out everywhere I can that a least SOME men and women will begin to realize that women really and truly ARE fundamentally different from men.

Alison Armstrong also teaches, 'modern' women have been taught to view men as 'large hairy women who misbehave.' This was eye-opening for me. Men will do or say something that no woman EVER would do except to a hated enemy, for reasons that entirely make sense to MEN.... and women have been brainwashed to attribute that to men being bad, not to them being MEN! (i.e., the hoax of toxic masculinity.)

I used to ruefully say to my husband... 'I do NOT understand how you could POSSIBLY see this-or-whatever that way. I accept and acknowledge that this is how you, and most men see it ... but it baffles me completely.' I also differentiate carefully between MEN and males... But, when a woman re-orders her perception of 'how men are' -- then his actions or words, seen through the MEN-FILTER, usually makes total sense.

A little bit personally, my wife will readily admit that she is an exceptionally emotional person, even for a woman, and that she feels very deeply certain things. I greatly value her counsel on a great many things, many of them beyond the scope of the home and family; just two days ago, for instance, I sought her counsel on a ministering issue that I had and if she thought my proposed response was appropriate or not. I value what she does well, and I recognize it, and I think that it is worth preserving, appreciating, etc. But there are other things where her advice is going to be bad. She does feel a lot of irrational fear (and even she admits that it is irrational—but it is real fear nonetheless) that will often, without my help, lead her to making bad decisions based on that fear and trying to alleviate it.

Men and women are supposed to be partners and compliments to each other. Women should not covet or envy the "glory" of masculinity and attempt to usurp it, and men should not covet or envy the "protected" status of women and stand aside and shirk their responsibilities as men. Men and women should work together, bringing to bear their own respective strengths, and respecting the strengths of the other. Women coveting the vote was an early example, and a dam-breaking moment in fact of the later flood of such actions, of doing the exact opposite of that.

Martyr for America

The Z-man often takes a somewhat fatalistic pose, even when he is otherwise saying sensible things. There's a lot of sense in what he's saying here. I'll quote this particular post, almost in full, because I think it has relevance. What it doesn't have yet, are any solutions. The Z-man is correct to point out the grifters of conservatism, but given his own fatalistic, "we're all doomed" approach, it's hard not to occasionally see him as a variant of that in his own right. That said, he's considerably more cogent and salient than some idiot like Rob Dreher or Kevin Williamson, or the others of back-stabbing Conservative, Inc., so I'm not likely to stop reading the Z-man anytime too soon. While his analysis isn't necessarily so brilliant that I haven't figured out most of what he's saying on my own, he says it considerably better than I do. I just find his "oh, well, throw up your hands because there's nothing to do about it" routine rather tiresome. Not that I have any solutions either, at this point, other than to pray for the delivery of our people from bondage the way Alma did when under the thumb of the Nephites and Ammulonites.

The Derek Chauvin trial came to a speedy end yesterday with the jury finding him guilty on all counts. What this means is they thought he intentionally caused the death of George Floyd and unintentionally caused the death of George Floyd. To a normal person, this makes no sense, but it is another reminder that America stopped being a rational society a long time ago. In a sensible society, this trial never would have occurred, because George Floyd would never have existed.

Lots of people were jubilant over the result. They do not know why they are happy, as they lack the ability to reflect on their own actions. They just know that their tribe won and that means they should be happy. That is the nature of liberal democracy. It is always about “who” and “whom” because everything is partisan. Those people celebrating are not happy for themselves. They are happy because they believe their enemies, real and imagined, are unhappy at the result.

It is not a lot different than a blood feud. When one side kills a member of the other side, it is not about righting some wrong or solving some problem. It is about adding more blood to the feud. That is how the Left sees white America. It is the people they hate and anything they can do to harm a white person is automatically good. Most of those people celebrating know nothing about the law, policing, crime, or the people involved in the incident. They just know Chauvin is white. (ed. and of course that George Floyd was black. No one could have predicted that the greatest false idol offered up for worship in the latter-days would be black people, because the notion is so intensely stupid that who in the world could ever have predicted it? And yet... here we are.)

Of course, the other side of this, the sensible white people trying to make sense of what is happening, are not happy. Many were willing to be reasonable and meet the other side halfway on this. Maybe Chauvin was wrong or made a mistake. Maybe he should face some sort of punishment. Maybe he needs to be made an example so other cops are more careful. They thought that was the point of the system. The jury would do the right thing and find a suitable compromise.

Those sensible white people are waking up to the terrible reality of America. The system they have spent their life trusting is now as irrational and deranged as those people celebrating in the streets. America is not the land of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other Founders. It is not the land of Abraham Lincoln. It is the land of Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez. They not only run the country, but the country also runs by the deranged logic of their minds.

For sure, many will rationalize what happened in order to stick to the old civic nationalist slogans they love so much. “This will be overturned on appeal” or “we have to take our country back from these Democrats” will get a lot of play. This is behavior of people in a cult when the tenets of the cult are disproven. Instead of accepting that beliefs were false, they internalize the disconfirmation into a justification for a more intense commitment. These people will decide to vote harder.

The parasites in Conservative Inc. will fund raise off this, telling those people desperate for answers that they will fight those liberals on their behalf. In a bankrupt society like America, every event is a chance for the grifters to grift a little bit more. You can be sure the conservative talk show hosts were popping champagne last night when the verdict was announced. There is nothing better for the conservative grift than losing, which is why they have been making sure to lose for generations.

Many, though, will let go of that last reed that was tethering them to the old America they grew up believing was real. Many will go through the stages of grief, maybe skipping to step three by this point. The realization that this is not their country and they are now second class citizens will not bring them comfort. It will free their mind of the frustration of believing in a myth. They will quit Red Team and start the process of looking for a new team, which will lead them to this side of the great divide.

This is the reality of a cultural revolution. The people smashing the system in the name of the revolution are beyond reason. It takes time for the rational, the people who make society function, to come to grips with it. Little by little, one martyr at a time, people do come to grips with this reality. You can be sure that every white cop in America is having the conversation with his wife right now. He may not know what to do, but he no longer sees himself and his job the way he did not so long ago.

It is frustrating, of course, for the people who have been on this side of the great divide for a long time. How is it that white people cannot see what is happening and where this must inevitably lead? The fact that no one was born on this side of the great divide, and we all made our own journey, is easily forgotten. For those on this side, this is the new normal and it is hard to imagine thinking any other way. The other side is a foreign country populated with people living a delusion.

That is the real test in these times. Those who have opened their eyes and see what is happening have to avoid being bitter about it. The job at hand is to wake up as many people as possible, ignore those who cannot open their eyes and help those staggering into the sunlight adjust to this new normal. There will be many more martyrs in the days ahead. Every war has them. The challenge is to give their martyrdom meaning so that one day, there are no more martyrs to our cause.

Statistics

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-violence-merrick-garland-gun-politics-gun-violence-7ddb30681ca3abbf1a0faa286e3df7b2

Fake President Joe the Pretender has signed some fake laws into effect as executive orders. They won't be successfully challenged, even though they blatantly violate the Consitution, because the Courts and the Legistlature are unable and unwilling to do so.

There's no such thing as a gun violence epidemic in America. What there is is a black crime epidemic. If you run the "gun violence" statistics and separate them by race, what you'll find is that the white gun violence crime rate is identical to other white European countries where the gun violence rate is apparently to be admired rather than embarrased by, such as the Dutch gun violence rate, or the Danish gun violence rate.

But I've mentioned many times before that the statistics, although they tend to make people sad to be aware of them, show that clearly black males are an order of magnitude more likely to commit violent crime than any other group, including MENA Moslems, although they are also much more likely to commit violent crime than white people. That's where we are; diversity means actual difference in attitude, in behavior, in culture and in society. It just is. Although I'm not a huge Ben Shapiro fan, he's right about one thing; these facts don't care how you feel about them. They're true nonetheless.

Elder Oaks talk

I've seen a number of liberals point to Elder Oaks' talk as "blasting" "right-wing extremists." And as being completely unprecedented as a political, American talk. Both are completely nonsense.

Of course, the way that they're attempting to link it as blasting "right wing extremists" is largely based around the "mob attack on the Capitol" hoax. Given that the media and the federal government has doubled down on promoting the hoax, I can't exactly fault them for believing that, I suppose. Five years after the popularization of the term "fake news" plenty of people still get their "news" from... the news, I suppose. Otherwise, as I've pointed out before, video clearly showing the "mob" being waved in by the police, walking peacefully through the velvet ropes, etc. shows that of course it wasn't a "mob" at all... with the exception of a few bad actors. Many of whom have been identified as left wing agitators known from Black Lives Matter mob action.

See, that's a mob. When we endured the better part of a year straight of left wing extremist mob action and a few liberals are breathlessly heading for the fainting couches over a hoax mob of right wing extremists, I think Trump supporters can confidently assert that Elder Oaks' talk doesn't apply to them. Even if Elder Oaks himself believes the right wing extremist hoax himself. His advice is universal, however—it applies to whatever specific situation is on the ground. 

It is ironic, however, that the actual supporters of mob violence are trying to utilize his talk as a cudgel... against people who only wanted to support the Constitution itself. Although from what I know of the Left, that can hardly be surprising. There's a reason why every prophet for a hundred years warned us in General Conference about Leftism, usually under the labels of socialism or communism, up through Ezra Taft Benson at least, although quotes of a similar nature can be found by Gordon B. Hinkley and Thomas S. Monson as well. I think a lot of liberals try to sweep that under the rug and pretend that it didn't happen, and that Ezra Taft Benson was some kind of political anomaly in the Church who must not have been speaking prophetically when he lambasted Leftism, but that requires accepting that same paradigm for Elders Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee and Heber J. Grant as well, who spoke just as pointedly about politics. For that matter, nothing that they said is inconsistent with remarks made by Brigham Young, and even Joseph Smith, and for that matter, all of the prophets, when they've expounded principles that are opposed to Leftism, albeit without the specific label. 

Similarly, Elder Oaks' talk is not some kind of fluke. Almost all of the prophets have made similar remarks about the Constitution. President Benson gave a similar talk in 1986. Elder Oaks himself gave a talk that in many respects was nearly identical to the one he gave recently back in 1992. This isn't the first time I've noticed that a General Authority has dusted off an older talk and reworked it somewhat to give it again when they felt that it was relevent to do so, but I particularly noted this one, because I was given that talk specificially by my Bishopric a few years ago to use as source material for a talk that they asked me to give for the Independence Day Sunday. 

Race relationships

 I couple of pertinent comments from the Z-man in his "Theatrocracy" post:

"Religion in a liberal democracy is a funny thing, in that most everyone is sure they understand what it is, but few people recognize it all around them. The people who think of themselves as religious in the conventional sense think they live in a fallen world where most have abandoned their faith. On the other hand, those who are sure they have advanced beyond the primitive need for religion are sure society is full of religious fanatics, except in their social circles of course.

"The reality is religion in liberal democracy is nothing like this. The people in charge of society are closer to fanatics on the belief scale, while the people embracing traditional religion are somewhere in the middle of the scale. Christianity no longer draws the fanatic like it used to. Instead, the fanatics are drawn to the secular faiths like the various forms of environmentalism or biological denialism. As a result, the managerial class functions more like a theocracy than a bureaucracy.

"You see this in the Megan Markle – Prince Harry drama that has been foisted on us by the media -entertainment complex this week. There is no reason for Americans to care much about this story. Markle is an American, so the tabloids have a reason to cover her, as the Cinderella story still sells to women, especially feminist women. On the other hand, she is boring, and her prince is the booby prize of the family. There was never a lot to sell here on the fairytale front with Megan Merkle.

"That was until she played the religion card. Megan Markle is an octoroon, apparently, so she gets to carry on as an oppressed woman of color, despite coming from a rich family and marrying into the British royal family. In the new American religion, all blacks, no matter how fortunate, are noble oppressed people. The big interview that set this drama in motion was conducted by Oprah Winfrey, a woman worth over a billion dollars, who regularly claims to be the victim of racism.

"The absurdity of the premise should be enough to get the story laughed off the stage, but in our modern theatrocracy, facts are not important. What matter is how much the story stimulates the moral outrage of the true believers in the audience. Because the heroine ticks the right boxes and her nemesis ticks all of the right boxes, this story is To Kill A Mockingbird for our true believers. The audience is divided into those who support Markle, the good people, and those who doubt her."

In my experience, which is just anecdotal, obviously, but at the same time fairly extensive—and data does back this experience up and suggest that it is the pattern that we normally see—you can rarely find examples of actual racism, even if you're looking for it full time. Oh, sure—you hear accusations of racism routinely, but what almost always happens when you dig into the details, is that you find out that the white people in question actually went out of their way bending over backwards to not be racist. Racism is blamed as the culprit for all kinds of failings, most of which have to do with something in the behavior, character, or sometimes just bad luck, of the non-white person. Unable or unwilling to properly face the real cause of this failure, racism is trotted out as a convenient "get of responsibility free" card; something that even Monopoly managed to avoid.

Anyone who examines the concept of systemic racism with an unbiased eye for what the data actually says will usually find that it backs up their own experiences as well: racism is a hoax. It's a profitable hoax for many, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon, until people start rejecting it. And even for those who don't make financial profit off of it, many find emotional gratificiation in perpetuating the con, making it an important part of their identity. Both black and white. 

Anyway, I'll let the Z-man's summary stand on it's own without further comment from me other than to ask; in your actual personal experience, what is a more pressing problem facing America and the rest of Christendom on earth right now; systemic racism, or systemic envy, greed and covetousness?:

"The English speaking world has now descended to the point where the managerial class is animated by the worship of nonwhites, in the same way primitives would deify a shaman. The mere presence of well-behaved blacks is enough to cause orgiastic paroxysms among the beautiful people and those who emulate them in the lower classes.

"American blacks, of course, are an ideal god for these people. No matter how wonderful the life of a black person, they are always complaining. American blacks are the most bitter and ungrateful people to ever walk the planet. Megan Markle is the full expression of that ungratefulness. She has lived the very definition of the charmed life, but she is a vinegar drinking shrew, living to make those around her miserable. She is the ideal black goddess for a people riddled with self-loathing."

Vox Day has some other interesting commentary on the Markle debacle, which is making all of Western Civilization look ridiculous, to be honest. 

"It's rather amusing how the British press is having such a hard time figuring out why she hates the British Royal Family so much.

"Meghan hates Princess Kate for the same reason every moderately attractive girl with ambitions of being the popular hot girl hates the beautiful head cheerleader. It's nothing more than raw, unmitigated envy. Meghan can't compete with Kate's position, class, style, or popularity, and her genetics prevent her from ever being considered 'an English Rose', so naturally she hates the other woman with the passion of ten thousand burning hells."

Modern day Babelism

Just in case you weren't clued in already to the spiritual dimension of our modern politico-social landscape, the EU headquarters is literally modeled on the Tower of Babel (architecturally and spiritually.) And now the newly announced Amazon headquarters in DC is to be as well.

https://www.israel365news.com/186976/amazon-reveals-plan-to-build-tower-of-babel-opposite-us-capital/

Of course, it also looks like a shiny poop emoji...

Virtue-signaling

While this post that I'm quoting isn't related to the Church at all, nor is the author probably all that aware of the Church of its culture, it should be applied internally by members of the Church. I've been quite disappointed in recent years at the vacuous virtue-signaling that comes from members of the Church. When there's a story about the systemic abuse or gang rape of American girls (or even boys), do members of the Church vacuously signal support for unmoderated immigration of people who are culturally incompatible with us? If so, they are guilty of virtue-signaling. Possibly much worse, as their actions are the legal equivalent of criminal negligence at best and aiding and abetting rape at worst. But that's just one example, among many. Anyway, I present for your introspection, the following, edited very slightly by me:

Back in 2009, I authored an article on this platform titled The Narcissism and Grandiosity of Celebrities.  Continuing this tradition, this past week on my social media platforms, I critiqued the virtue signalling that members of the privileged classes engage in. Here is what I wrote: 

"Let me explain yet again the source for all of the platitudinous virtue signalling. The truly privileged elites know that deep down they are frauds. They suffer from existential guilt. Hence, one of the ways by which they assuage the guilt albatross around their necks is to demonstrate to the world that they are truly compassionate, truly loving, truly caring, truly profound. Hence, they love all 'undocumented' immigrants. They love Mother Earth. They love the ozone layer. They love BLM. They love socialism. They love inner cities. They hate the gentrification of neighbourhoods. They love mentors of color. They cherish diversity. They love LGBTQ movies. They adore queer architecture. They are better than you. More caring, more cultured, more empathetic. This permits them to sleep better at night. See, I'm not a fraud. I may be a gargantuan parasitic hedge fund [liar] but I really care. I may be an overpaid BS actor but I fight for solar panels. Those fly over rubes deserve their lot in life. They are racists who bed their siblings. We are science supporters who fight against Mother Earth rapists whilst flying in our private jets. It is a classic ego defensive strategy that permits the ruling class to exist within their fractured selves. Save this thread. Memorize it. I'm offering you a deep psychological explanation of our times."

Seth Rogen who had been tagged on Twitter regarding the latter, retorted as follows:

"I actually watched your video and it’s so stupid. Why was I a left wing socialist when I was broke and unemployed according to your brilliant theory?"

To which I replied:

"Thanks for watching. Many young people are socialists when they are driven by immature impulses of utopia. They then grow up. You are a grown man with tons of money. Your current stances are rooted in vacuous empty signalling rooted in a desire to belong in Hollywood. It takes zero courage to hold your stances within the entertainment ecosystem. You espouse [dishonest] rhetoric that wins you points at the cool kids' parties but you are otherwise as ignorant as my out-of-order toaster. I'd be happy to chat with you on my show as you have a very large platform and as such you have the opportunity to actually make a difference. Stop succumbing to the herd mindset. Learn how to think critically. Learn the meaning and implications of socialism vs. capitalism. You are among the MOST privileged people in the history of humanity. And yet you walk around as though you are a Che Guevara revolutionary. You are the product of capitalism. If you are such a socialist, send me some of your money. I'm trying to build an interdisciplinary research institute. Live out your convictions. If you are a socialist, you have no business being the beneficiary of the most capitalist industry in the most capitalist country in the history of humanity. Don't be a hypocritical fraud. Cheers amigo."

In my recently released bestselling book The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, I discuss the differences between virtue signalling and honest signalling. Here are two relevant excerpts from a section titled "Do Not Virtue-Signal": 

"Each time that a terrorist attack takes place in some Western city, nauseating hordes of cowards do one of two things: 1) Change their social media handles to the flag of the country that was attacked; 2) Share a hashtag on Twitter to signal their solidarity with a given cause (#JeSuisCharlie following the terror killings at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris; #BringBackOurGirls, made famous by Michelle Obama, in support of the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram). Politicians seek to outdo one another in offering vacuous “heartfelt” condolences while in many cases continuing to enact policies that are directly responsible for the terror attacks in question. In the great majority of instances, these are utterly useless endeavors meant to do nothing but advertise one’s supposed virtue to the world (hence the term virtue-signaling). It is a form of cheap and costless self-aggrandizing that feeds one’s ego. I must be a good person who truly cares, as evidenced by my progressive hashtag. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who engage in such platitudinous signaling are cowardly and meek." (p. 178)

Later I added the following (pp. 180-181):

"During a highly publicized 2017 event held in Toronto, Oren Amitay, Jordan Peterson, and I were asked to identify our respective freedom of speech heroes. I responded that the ultimate heroes are those who risk their lives to defend such freedoms. I pointed to individuals from the Middle East (some of whom have been guests on my show) who are willing to defend these ideals knowing full well that they may pay the ultimate price. This is what having skin in the game looks like. This is costly virtue, not virtue-signaling. Over the past year or so, I have become good friends with Ensaf Haidar, the wife of jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, and I had the pleasure of meeting her three lovely children at a dinner organized by the actor Mark Pellegrino and his wife. Raif is serving a ten-year prison sentence and was scheduled to receive one thousand lashes ('only' fifty of which have thus far been administered) for having the temerity to question, in a rather tepid manner, various religious and cultural realities in the region. Retweeting #JeSuisCharlie is impotent virtue-signaling; critiquing the Saudi regime from within Saudi Arabia is courage in action."

Bottom line: In order for a signal to be an honest one, it must be handicapping; it must be costly to the one who emits the signal. Raif Badawi lived out his convictions. He engaged in costly signalling. Seth Rogen and other champagne socialists do not live out their convictions. They are vacuous parasitic virtue signallers who wear Che Guevara t-shirts from the luxury of their Malibu homes. Be the former and reject the latter.