The Regressive Left, pt. 4: Feminist Creationism

Welcome to the fourth part in our series aimed
at defining the Regressive Left. In the first three parts, we have seen how
bad ideas infiltrated liberal discourse, creating the anti-liberal abomination that we call
the regressive left. In today’s episode, we are going to get deeper
into the heart of darkness, and show how regressive thought corrupts morality itself. Due to the influence of the regressive left,
Western thought has taken a turn to the immoral, and needs to be put back on track before something
really bad happens. Every culture creates a set of ethics, ways
of behavior that are supposed to shape its members into becoming moral persons. Most cultures agree that ethics should be
based on the understanding that human nature is flawed. Conservative thought in the West draws mainly
from the Christian idea that Man is born with original sin, and because of that his nature
is corrupt and drives him to do bad things. Conservative ethics are therefore based on
the repression of human nature, either by means of legal restriction, or education that
teaches humans to repress their natural urges. Conservative thought is usually suspicious
of human ability to behave morally without these repressive means. Liberal thought, on the other hand, does not
see human nature as sinful. Human nature, in liberal thought, is neither
good nor bad. Humans are flawed because we evolved from
the apes, so we have animalistic urges. These urges can drive us to do bad things,
but they can also drive us to do good things. The sexual urge, for instance, demands satisfaction,
and it can be satisfied in a good way, a way that brings pleasure to our sexual partner,
or in a bad way, as in the case of rape. The aim of liberal ethics, then, is not to
repress but to sublimate the urges, to learn how to direct them in positive directions. Progress, according to liberals, is achieved
through creating a culture that better sublimates our animalistic urges. Then there is the radical left, which, as
we’ve discussed in part one, believes that human nature is good. The radicals deny that our bad deeds are caused
by our flawed nature, and believe that they are the result of having our nature twisted
by the crooked social systems that Man has created. This idea preceded the realization that humans
evolved from apes, and should have been put to rest once that discovery has been made,
and yet it persists. And so, the ethics of radical leftists is
not aimed at sublimating human urges. They believe that in the current system, we
cannot possibly act in a moral way, so, just like the conservatives and even to a greater
extent, they advocate suppression of human behavior. That is one side of the radical ethics. The other side is using all possible means,
including immoral means, to bring about the perfect system, believing that this will liberate
humans to act according to their nature, and thus become moral. But as we’ve discussed in the previous chapters,
the regressive left is a curious case of the radical left. It does not overtly hold the position that
human nature is good, but it is still unknowingly being driven by it. On the surface, regressive thought seemingly
contends that there is no such thing as human nature, and that all of our urges are the
result of a social construct. So while liberals see the urges as something
biological which culture should then refine and shape, regressives maintain that the urges
are created by the culture we grow up in. They essentially deny that humans evolved
from apes and have urges like any other animal. This view that sees humans as devoid of nature,
and regards human behavior as completely shaped by culture, characterizes what is known as
post-modern thinking, which we will discuss in future episodes. But that view alone is not enough to turn
you into a regressive leftist. Because regressives, as we’ve discussed in
part two, also hold the notion that society should have complete equality, and that such
a society will have no violence. Meaning that deep down, regressives do believe
in human nature, and that they still hold on to the radical leftist idea that human
nature is good, and will manifest its goodness if we only lived in a perfect system. The combination of these two conflicting views,
which they alternate between according to convenience, is what characterizes the regressive
mind. To illustrate, we shall focus on the subject
of rape. In conservative societies, the idea is that
men cannot control their sexual drive, so the responsibility to prevent the rape is
put largely on the women. Women are demanded to dress modestly, to have
limited contact with men, and to not behave in sexually suggestive ways. When rapes occur, these societies tend to
blame the victim as much as the perpetrator. These societies also tend to legitimize some
cases of forced sexual relations, such as when a husband forces himself on his wife. Liberal societies, on the other hand, put
the responsibility entirely on the rapist, and work to train men to control their urges
and respect the woman’s will. The liberal ideal is to allow women as much
freedom as possible, without fear of being raped. The result in a resounding victory for the
liberal way. Due to the work of liberal feminists and other
liberals, western societies now criminalize any case of unwanted sex being forced on someone. They teach their population to understand
the limits of sexual behavior and the severity of the damage done by rape, and to be in control
of the sexual drive. They give much greater freedom to women, and
still the women are much safer than they are in conservative, non-Western societies. And Western culture just keeps getting better
and better. The rape rate in the United States, for instance,
has dropped more than 90% in the last four decades. In 2012, the last remnants of rape apologism
and victim blaming were shamed and purged from western public discourse. There is still a lot of work to be done, but
any rational analysis would conclude that the liberal way is the superior way, and keeping
to the same path will continue to decrease the rape rate, and make women ever more safe. But, of course, we can’t hope to end rape
altogether. Humans are fallible, and they don’t always
manage to control their urges, so believing that we can be completely safe from the threat
of rape is utopian. Even if we managed to teach all people how
they should conduct themselves sexually, and trained all of them to be in control of their
urges, there will still be rapists. And that is because, unfortunately, some people
are rapists by nature. Studies have shown that a large percentage
of rapes in the West today are performed by people who are not fully satisfied by consensual
sex, but only by rape. They get sexually aroused by their ability
to overpower someone who is trying to resist the sexual contact. It is their sexual preference, it is their
kink. And since we do not know where sexual preferences
come from, we don’t know how to change them. So we cannot cure these rapists, and as long
as that is the case, there will be rapists in our midst. Which means that women are still required
to take precautions to avoid putting themselves in situations where they can get raped, and
our liberal societies should, and do, educate them to do so. So the liberal approach to reducing rape is
a huge success, but that’s not how the regressives see it. Beginning in the 1970s, radical feminists
started to claim that the goal should be eliminating rape altogether, and the fact that rape still
exists proves that we are living in a “rape culture”. What is at the basis of this argument is the
belief that human nature is good, and it is our culture that turns us into rapists. While liberal thought contends that we are
naturally driven by sexual lusts, and the role of culture is to teach us to control
these lusts, radical feminism argues that lust is not a natural thing, but something
that our culture instills in us. Thus, it is possible to eradicate rape completely,
and the fact that rape still exists is proof that we are living in a Patriarchy that teaches
men to rape. One of the arguments feminists use to justify
this conspiracy theory is a piece of sophistry that revolves around the people I mentioned
earlier, the people whose sexual perversion is that they need to overpower resistance
to be sexually satisfied. Radical feminists have detached the actions
of these people from its sexual nature, and focus only on the element of power, claiming
that this shows that rape is not about sex but about power. The sexual part of rape, they theorize, is
just a way for men to assert their power and domination over women, and thus to maintain
the Patriarchy. This theory is evidently false, since rapists
will always assert that sexual satisfaction is their main goal, and the use of force is
just what they need to achieve that satisfaction. Nevertheless, this ridiculous theory has taken
root in feminist thought, and infests academic writing on the issue. One of the many negative results of these
theories is that radical feminists object to any attempt to teach women how to take
precautions against rape. Since they regard rape as something that is
created by the culture, and hence could be eradicated if we only change our culture,
they don’t think individual women should assume any responsibility. To them, this is a form of blaming the victim,
which distracts us from the thing that we should really be doing, which is to destroy
the patriarchy that rules Western culture. As is usually the case with radical leftists,
caring about the individual is cast aside as irrelevant, because the only thing that
matters is the revolution. I’ve coined the term ‘Feminist Creationism’
to define this way of thinking. Feminist creationists essentially deny evolution,
deny that humans evolved from apes and are thus driven by animalistic urges. Instead, they see the natural state of humans
as a Garden of Eden in which there are no sexual drives, a Garden of Eden that we fell
from into a Patriarchy that teaches men to rape women to affirm their domination. The Patriarchy is an act of creation, a human
creation that is imposed on our society. The only solution to it is another act of
creation, which will impose on our society a system that has total gender equality. Once we do that, we will bring heaven on Earth,
and there will be no more rape. Back in the 1970s, this way of thinking sat
pretty well within the Marxist dogmas of the radical left. But the utopianism of Marxism fell out of
vogue, and the Marxist idea that human nature is good no longer holds sway in the western
mind. To maintain the myth of rape culture, radical
feminists had to find another theory to rely on, and so they rely on the post-modern concepts
that everything is the result of culture. But here there is a problem: Western culture
of today is much better on protecting women than any culture that ever existed, which
makes it hard to call it rape culture. So, to avoid this problem, the feminists do
not compare it to existing or past cultures, but against the ideal of a culture without
rape, which will exist if we had true gender equality. And here is where we see the shift from radical
feminism to regressive feminism. The belief that rape will disappear if we
had gender equality does not follow from post-modern thinking, does not follow from the idea that
there is no human nature. It follows only from Marxist thinking, which
sees human nature as good and blames all bad deeds on inequality. So the regressive feminist does not claim
to have a utopian ideal, but deep down she still believes in feminist creationism. Earlier, I characterized radical ethics as
containing two elements: first, bringing down the system by any means necessary, to replace
it with a perfect system. Second, until we have that perfect system,
to repress the current culture. Regressives no longer advocate for the perfect
system, but they are still comparing our society against it, so they still believe that the
current system is twisting our minds, and that our behavior should therefore be repressed. And since they are leftists who believe in
progress, yet have no idea of utopia to progress to, the only direction left for them to progress
in is that of an ever growing repression. The regressives spend their entire time trying
to find things that are problematic about current society, things that should be repressed. If you dive into their logic, you realize
that they have a new ideal of a perfect society, and that is a society where everyone is repressed
to the point where they don’t offend anyone. And so they represent an attitude that is
more authoritarian than the worst kind of conservative attitudes. Thus, they have become an enemy of liberal
society. Now, some feminists claim that what I’ve just
portrayed is a mischaracterization of what they mean by “Rape Culture”. Rape culture, they say, is merely the name
given to certain cultural norms and preconceptions that still remain in our society, which legitimize
or trivialize rape. I agree that such norms and preconceptions
do exist, for instance when it comes to rape in the prison system, but that does not justify
branding Western society as a whole as a rape culture. We should simply see it as lingering problems
in our imperfect society, and continue the liberal project of trying to reduce these
problems. It is only when you are driven by a utopian
view of society, and believe that it can be perfect, that the term “rape culture” makes
sense. And when you define western culture as a rape
culture, you are not focusing on the specific problems, but on the culture at large. And then, instead of trying to fight the problems
themselves, you start to blame elements in the culture that have nothing to do with these
problems. This is regressive feminist Anita Sarkeesian. As we can see, Anita claims that rape is at
epidemic levels in the West. Now when you say “epidemic”, you are suggesting
that it is worse than usual. But Western society, as we’ve seen, is better
than ever before. So how can Anita speak of an epidemic? Because she’s not comparing it to the past,
but to the utopian ideal of a society with no rape. However, once you use the term “rape epidemic”,
as regressive feminists often do, you make it seem that there is something specifically
wrong in today’s culture, something that made it go worse. What is specific about today’s culture, that
might have caused it to go bad? Anita’s answer is: video games. Anita Sarkeesian became infamous for creating
a YouTube series aimed at exploring misogynistic tropes in video games, and how they contribute
to maintaining Patriarchy and rape culture. However, in the entire series that contains
around 20 videos, she failed to point out even a single case of a video game that promotes
violence against women. Instead, her argument is that video games
treat violence against women as a fact of life, and thus perpetuate rape culture. She wants video games to show a world where
violence against women does not exist, believing that this will shape the minds of the gamers
to stop being violent. This is what feminist creationism is about:
the belief that to create a perfect society, all it takes is an act of human creation that
will shape the minds of all humans to think in a certain way. Thus begins the march of regress, the aforementioned
march of regressive ethics aimed at creating a society that is more and more authoritarian
and repressive. Regressive feminists believe that since we
live in a Patriarchy and a Rape Culture, all the artifacts that this culture creates are
bad, contributing to the perpetuation of violence against women. Therefore, all cultural artifacts are to be
censored and repressed, except for artifacts that teach people to repress themselves. Any rational person would say that since liberal
culture has shown itself to be the best culture to women, and a culture that improves itself
as it goes along, its cultural artifacts should be praised for contributing to this progress. But by talking of a rape epidemic, regressive
feminists make it seem like it is going worse, and fool the passive regressives into thinking
that there is a problem with our culture that needs to be addressed through censorship. But there is a snag. The statistical evidence, as we have seen,
shows that the rape rate is dropping in the West, contradicting the regressive feminist
narrative. They need to preserve the narrative somehow,
and they do it by changing the way data is being collected. The number I quoted earlier about the drop
in the rape rate in America is taken from the US Bureau of Justice statistics. Now, it is well known that a lot of rapes
go unreported to the police, so the Bureau of Justice doesn’t go to the police for its
data, but surveys women directly and asks them if they have been raped. That, however, is not enough for regressive
feminists, since they believe that women’s minds are also shaped by rape culture, so
many of them don’t know what rape is. To collect their data, then, regressive researchers
ask women about their experiences, and decide for them if they have been raped or not. In this way, the rape numbers get inflated. The focus today is mainly on rape in college. Say a college boy misinterprets the signals
from a college girl and tries to kiss her, and she pushes him away. He then apologizes, and the issue is resolved
amicably. The girl doesn’t feel like she was assaulted,
but when asked in a survey if she was ever kissed against her will, she answers affirmatively. According to the criterion used by regressive
researchers, this will count as a sexual assault. Or say that another college girl went out
with her boyfriend for a night of binge drinking, and they ended up having sex in her dorm. She will then affirm in the survey that she
had sex while under the influence, and will be counted as a rape case. And so, these studies find that one in every
five women gets assaulted while in college, whereas the numbers provided by the US Bureau
of Justice put this number at 1 in 53. Media outlets often misrepresent the 1 in
5 number and define it not as the sexual assault rate but as the rape rate, making it sound
even worse. Thus, the rape epidemic narrative is maintained. But this narrative still doesn’t hold water. Even if we accept the definitions of rape
used by regressives, the fact remains that the rape rate is dropping. You need only a superficial knowledge of history
to realize that if we used these definitions to measure the sexual assault rate a few decades
ago, it would have been much higher than one in five. We would have probably found that every woman
was assaulted multiple times during her lifetime. Which means that the liberal approach is still
the best approach, and the regressive attempts to discredit it are harmful to the battle
against rape. Still, there are enough passive regressives
around to buy the rape epidemic myth, so the rape culture narrative is maintained. In the American academy today, this is a big
problem, because by convincing the public that there is a rape epidemic on campus that
needs to be addressed, the regressive feminists managed to insert a policy that says male
students can be convicted of rape even if their guilt isn’t proven. It doesn’t go on their criminal record, but
they can still be branded as rapists, which means that their lives are pretty much ruined. In their zeal to fight against the imaginary
rape culture, the regressives are destroying the basics of our liberal ethics. But now, the regressive feminist narrative
encounters a much bigger problem. Since they claim that human behavior is 100%
shaped by culture, they would have to admit that non-Western cultures are worse than Western
culture, since the rape problem in them is much more acute. This would not have been much of a problem
for the radical feminists of the past, since they would simply say that all cultures are
bad and should be destroyed in the communist revolution. But today’s regressive feminism, as we’ve
discussed in part 2, is intersectional, and based on identity politics. It believes it has to defend other marginalized
groups against the white male Patriarchy. How can regressive feminist thought square
the idea that it needs to defend these non-Western cultures from the evil Western Patriarchy,
with the fact that they are actually much worse in protecting women? There are several ways in which regressives
deal with this problem. One way is to point out the so-called rape
epidemic in the West, to show that our culture is no better than the other cultures. Of course, if we took the definitions of sexual
assault which regressive feminists apply to Western culture, and applied them to non-Western
cultures, the results would be astronomical. But when discussing the other cultures, regressives
will use the definitions that these cultures use, and so they get a lower rape rate, and
can pretend that the cultures are basically the same. Thus, they can say that we should focus on
fixing our own culture, and that allows them to dismiss any talk of other cultures. Another tactic is to rely on the old radical
leftist idea that Western imperialism is to blame for all the problems of other cultures,
which in regressive rhetoric translates to the claim that it is all due to the global
patriarchy. Regressive feminists will support non-western
feminists along as they stick to the global Patriarchy narrative, but if they dare claim
that their culture is worse, the regressives attack them and portray them as collaborators
with the Patriarchy. Thus, regressive feminists can assure themselves
that they are actually helping the feminist fight in those societies, when in fact, they
are complicit in silencing the voices that can bring the change. This process was showcased most vividly in
early 2016, after the New Year’s Eve incidents in Cologne and other German cities, where
German women were sexually assaulted by gangs of hundreds of Arab immigrants. The Western public, naturally, was appalled
by these events, and realized that something needs to be done to change the cultural norms
that these immigrants brought with them. The regressive feminists, meanwhile, were
busy mainly trying to defend their inter-sectional narrative. Take Laurie Penny, a regressive feminist who
has made a career out of writing on Western rape culture. The article she wrote after the Cologne incident
started by claiming that the outrage is fake, since, after all, westerners are all part
of rape culture so they don’t really care about the assaulted women. Instead, she claimed that their real motive
is justifying their racism towards the immigrants. She then went on to remind us that she supports
Arab feminists, so no one can say that she doesn’t care about the problem. Thus, Penny manages to retain the regressive
narrative, and the self-perception she has of herself as holier than the non-feminists. The liberal approach is that since we have
proven that the liberal way is superior, we now want to help other cultures adopt it. We therefore pressure conservative societies
to reform their attitude to women, and support the reformers who are trying to change them
from within. But regressives are not part of this process. Because of their conflicting and self-contradicting
views, their moral compass just wavers in every direction, and they can’t form a coherent
approach to this issue. As a result, they are a hindrance in the fight
for women’s rights in conservative cultures. To illustrate what I’ve just described, and
show how the regressive moral compass is broken, let’s go to regressive central, a.k.a The
Young Turks. Those who just recently started watching TYT
may be surprised to hear this, but they weren’t always so regressive. They were passive regressives, and held some
liberal views. The deterioration of the show into full regressive
mode was a showcase to what happened to large parts of the left in recent years. Here they are in the beginning of 2016, talking
about the Cologne New Year’s Eve events. Ana Kasparian, as we shall see, is still talking like a liberal. So Ana brings up the cultural differences, the fact that the attackers come from conservative
cultures that are not compatible with our liberal ways. That’s the liberal position, but the three
other people on the panel are more regressive than her, and they are uncomfortable with
this line of reasoning. The first challenge is that it wasn’t due to culture, but just an incident involving
some drunk men, which can happen in any culture. Ana, though, sticks to her guns, and talks
about the need to teach the immigrants our western ways. So Jimmy Dore chimes in, and brings it back to the claim that all cultures are morally
the same. Actually, he hints that western culture is
worse, because here it’s an institutional problem, and not just morons on the street. The regressive slogans of rape culture and rape epidemic are thrown into the conversation,
and Ana is beginning to feel unsure. She tries to show her regressive friends that
she’s on their side, and not with those who are supposedly just pretending to care about
the women so they can attack the immigrants. As we recall, the one in five number comes from a survey that decides for the women if
they got assaulted, because of the assumptions that women don’t know what sexual assault
is, so they won’t report it even in an anonymous survey. But Jimmy knows two things – he knows that
one in five women gets assaulted, and he knows that many assaults go unreported. Putting the two together, he assumes that
the one in five is the number of reported cases, so the actual rate is even higher. Thus, he can make the argument that we can’t
know that our culture is better. Ana is already beginning to backpedal. She has no problem with the claim that the
west is a rape culture, but heaven forbid anyone would think that she claims that about
a non-western culture. So she agrees that their culture isn’t rapey,
but still thinks that they need to learn our western ways. As we can see, Ana is the only one who cares about the victims. The other panelists care only about defending
the immigrants. They are ecstatic to point out to Ana that
some of the views that she ascribed to the immigrants are also held by people in the
West. Except that in the West, those views are held
by some individuals, whereas Ana’s point about the immigrants was that these views are part
of their mainstream culture. But Ana fails to point out this false equivalence,
because she is already terrified. Terrified that people will think that she
is racist. She resorts to virtue signaling, reminding
us that she’s against it when it’s done in our culture, so she must fight it in other
cultures as well. But in that, she basically accepts that there
is no difference between the cultures. Now that we’ve brought Ana to heel and established that all cultures are morally the same, we
can blame the global patriarchy. And we are the good guys here, because we
are the ones who have been fighting the global patriarchy all along. So now that we’ve established that, we can go on the attack against these western racists
who claim that there is a difference between the cultures. Bill Maher, as we’ve seen in the previous episode, is one of the liberals who are calling
out the regressives on their stance towards Muslims. When Becca heard about the Cologne incident,
her main worry was not about the victims, but about how this will vindicate Maher. But now that we’ve analyzed it and proven
that the real culprit is the global patriarchy, everything is alright. Reestablishing their sense of moral superiority,
the panelists are now all smirking at Maher’s stupidity. As we recall, when he discussed rape in the West, Jimmy was blaming the culture. But when talking about other societies, we
can’t blame the culture. It’s all about identity politics, about who
is more oppressed. Except this pyramid of oppression becomes
all confused when you have to discuss Arab men attacking white women, but we have already
left that subject behind, and now we are just talking about how virtuous we are. Jimmy then goes on a long confused rant that
jumbles all we’ve already heard together, until Ana jumps is to show that she’s on board. Except we weren’t talking about fundamentalists, were we? No one claimed that the Cologne attacks were
inspired by religion. The argument was about culture. But our regressive panelists have long forgotten
all that, and bring the discussion to grounds that are more comfortable to them. And so, at the end of the video, the liberal totally capitulates to the regressives. That period of time marked the beginning of
Ana Kasparian’s transition from a good-natured, fairly open-minded, likeable liberal, into
the neurotic, mean-spirited, regressive demagogue that she is nowadays. And the entire channel went along with her. This notorious Young Turks video is a perfects
showcase of the dynamics of regressive left discourse. It shows them incapable of dealing with the
moral problems of our time. Some issues require a tough moral choice,
as they offer only bad solutions. The moral solution in such cases is to choose
the lesser evil, and you feel like shit when you make that choice, but it
is the right thing to do. Regressives, however, prefer to leave it to
others to make the tough choices, while they sit on the sidelines and criticize their immorality,
so they can feel righteous. They use ideas from different schools of leftist
thought, choosing the idea that is most convenient at the moment, but they use them not to offer
a solution but to bolster their self-righteousness. And they intimidate the passive regressives
into agreeing with them, and joining them in silencing anyone who tries to have an honest
debate. The video began with Ana trying to deal with
the problem, and ended with her in the chorus of self-praise and condemnation for
those who try to offer solutions. What about the victims of the attacks, and
the women of Germany who are now living in fear? Eh, fuck ’em. Dear regressives, understand this: you are
immoral. When you avoid making tough decisions so you
can live in a bubble of self-righteousness, you are running away from the fight and leaving
it to others. If you are a good person, then you should
join the fight and help your society make the moral decision. When you run away from the fight, you are
not remaining morally pure, but you become complicit in every immoral decision that your
society is making. I have shown that the ethics of the regressive
left are based on an ever growing social repression, which they confuse for progress. Thus, they are joining forces with conservatives,
in the battle against liberals. But it is even worse than that, because by
their distortion of liberal ethics, they are opening the way to ethics that are much worse
than conservative ethics. By adopting the radical criticism of Western
society, they are giving legitimacy to those radicals who believe that they can use any
means, including immoral means, to bring the revolution. By adopting the post-modern idea of moral
relativism, they are hindering our ability to pressure other societies to reform. And by adopting identity politics, they are
giving preference to the worst kind of ethical systems, just because they are held by allegedly
marginalized groups. In that, they are undermining our liberal
values, threatening to reverse all the progress that liberal ethics have brought. And that is why they are the regressive left.

Comments 48

  • God damn Youtube! They sent me an email but I wasn't first…not even first like….I suppose I may get first comment.

  • when the anthropological basis for your ideology is completly fictional
    (imagine a fem and or a commie ball meme here)

  • You talking about regressives now is equivalent to me to Richard Dawkins talking about religion ten years ago.

    It's an unrivaled feeling of intellectual serenity and catharsis.

  • please make a video about the tendency of pathologisation of behaviour in freudian phychology and the influence of freudian phychology on "critical theory"

  • Do you have a minds account or is it a doppleganger (which I found)?

  • Identity politics is one of the greatest evils of our time – possibly bigger than Trump. Much bigger.

    I'd even go so far as to argue that the "feminist creationism" mentality might have led to nonsense like Trump's election.

  • Them snakes tho

  • Not that it matters, but I only "like" videos that have some genuinely profound statement or point…or something that I think is really clever. However, it's getting to the point that whenever Zarathustra's Serpent posts, I just automatically click the "like" because it's probably going to be the best video anyone's made on the subject. Keep 'em coming, and still waiting for your appearance on some livestreams, yo.

  • Outstanding. You've articulated the things that have been on my mind that I haven't been able to comprehensively organize. Thank you

  • Be honest, is the most fun part of doing these videos choosing where to have the serpent enter and exit?

    Well done video as always

  • 3:43 why french penguins?

  • this is an incredible breakdown of the situation… mind opening

  • I wound up skipping the TYT bit. They just kinda pissed me off too much, even when their commentary is broken up.

  • Good Job, Mr. Serpent

  • I would pay to watch a conversation between you and Dr Peterson about Nietzsche – not a debate just a conversation.

  • I am offended to the core of my being the Jimmy fucking Dore would dare to compare himself to George Carlin. As an atheist, I feel that creating that kind of dissonance is the closest to committing actual blasphemy that a person can get.

  • Imagine, if Ana redpilled and goes independent, and tells all the secrets 🙂 She can destroy TYT completely lol

  • 4:44 Feminists don't put the responsibily entirely on the rapists, but on men (and society, which is patriarchal and a rape culture and it's the men's fault). Plus, they often deny that women can rape too, or look the other way when it happens. They also deny personal responsibility for women and have even put that into law. Like: a person (woman) can't consent when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I strongly disagree with that. It is one's own choice to take a substance and it treats the woman as a child.

  • I like you dude but pls fix the snake (his belly shows), it's not important but it drives me nuts.

  • Ana needs to ditch this TYT gig, she would be a lot better without them.
    Great vid as always man, is it possible you could go on some podcast type shows like Sargons?
    Would really like to listen to you 2 for couple of hours 😀

  • Thanks for this series – it is the most complete treatment of the subject that I have yet seen online.

  • I love this series! Keep doing what you're doing Zarathustra's Serpent, it's brilliant! I'll make sure to promote to whereever I can, this need more views!

  • This is absolutely fantastic. Crystal clear picture of the underlying ideologies and narratives.

  • "I'm not a sociologist"
    banner comes up

  • This is the best video I've ever seen on this topic. The clarity is crystal, the level of insight incredible. And the breakdown of the Young Turk discussion next level work. It is crucial these arguments are more widely dispersed. Truly excellent.

  • Hey just FYI I thought your channel was dead, because nothing was coming into my subscription feed. I checked to see, and was surprised that you've had a bunch of videos since I last checked. I'm catching up on the last couple of months of content and plan to set up my Patreon account so I can become a patron shortly. Thanks for the all the fantastic videos.

  • I think jimmy dore starts 96% of his analysis with something along the lines of "I haven't done any research and I don't know what I'm talking about, but…"

    Great video as usual. Keep it up 👍

  • 13:08
    Women are relatively "safe" compared to the loads of men getting stabbed, shot, blown to bits and dying in the most gruesome ways possible depicted in media.
    All of Anita's videos deal with the "messages" the media is sending about women, but what does it tell us when violence against women is something only the most evil of men do and violence against men it's just so common?

  • Impressive video.

  • I know you might have used male perpetrator/ female victim for convenience, but it would be interesting to hear this entire video where the genders are reversed.

    I wonder how people would manage to wrap their minds around it, w/o suffering a severe cognitive dissonance.

    Good vid man.

    The same reasoning of for patriarchy creates sexual urges in men and tell them to rape is basically the same as the Duluth model which asserts that all domestic violence is male on female, and not because some men suffer from psychological, pathological issues that made them violent, but only because "patriarchy" told them they should beat their wives to keep them down. I.e. every act of violence against women is a political act, and has nothing to do with human flawed nature.

    This model has been implemented in all the women's shelters across Canada, the US Europe and even Israel, and it's still implemented in many places.

    Especially in Canada, men who call the police because they got attacked by their wife, find themselves arrested, moved away from their home and then they have to go through a program which they have to admit they are the violent element in the relationship, they must apologize and regret their bad actions, and if not they will see their kids and go to prison until they do.

    Canada 2017!

    and then people wonder why the highest demography of suicide are divorced men.

  • I'll be honest, if it wasn't for you I'd have no idea what was going on in that argument at the end.

  • "In conservative societies the idea is that men cannot control their sexual drive, so the responsibility to prevent the rape is put largely on the women." – Serpent

    All conservative societies? No. Individual self-control and responsibility is a central tennant of Jewish, Christian and secular Western conservative societies. All hold the view that individuals (including men) can and should control their desires (including sexual desires).

    If Serpent meant certain overseas conservatives societies he should have clearly stated so. As it stands his caricature of one side's view point ('Conservatives just want to repress women') has more in common with the Regressive Left he is keen to criticise.

  • When you start talking about the ways Ana stands out against the other panelists at TYT ~22:00, it reminds me of Aristotle's discussions on ethics, namely what he called the "first" of all virtues — that is, the most important virtue —
    "Courage is the first of all virtues because it is the one that guarantees the others."

    That is, you can have any number of virtues and hold them dearly, but if you do not have courage, then those virtues will falter under pressure, and you'll fail to uphold them out of fear. If you have courage, it stands as a guarantee for your other virtues. Ana has some significant virtues, but she certainly lacks courage.

    (Ironically, I often here TYT blamed for their name, accusing them of naming themselves after a genocidal bunch of revolutionaries [which notably killed Armenians, ie., Ana's ethnicity], although it's obvious they named themselves more after the more colloquial / metaphorical usage of "young turk", ie., someone who courageously stands up against authority with uncommon ideas and values — I bring it up because of that courage element, that thing so often lacking there.)

  • Gods I feel stupider and stupider the more I have to listen to TYT, even in just clips. Really don't know how you guys who review them can possibly stand to imbibe this poison over and over.

    'Because we're PROGRESSIVES, all we care about is who is [we define as] the oppressed…' Not right or wrong, no actual standards, no yardstick, just who they feel, in this instant, is 'oppressed', therefore everything is relative.

  • "Passive-regressive". Trademark that.

  • 21:06 No, YOU take Laurie Penny.

    I'm concerned I'll catch…something icky.

  • You're quite wrong about Jimmy Dore. he is good-hearted, but he is ignorant. he lacks the intellectual sophistication to to question the Kaiser report he cites. He does not seem regressive.

  • Can you criticize the main idea of the Young Turks, that it is necessary to remove Corporate influence from politics?

  • Marital "rape" is not rape, it is assault(at most).

    Marriage is a sexual contract.

    If you have sex with your spouse when they "don't feel like it", you are not "raping" them.

  • really good analysis mate. You should have more subs. I saw you on a livestream with Sargon I think. Keep it up bro! <3

  • @Z,

    I'm a little late to the party, but I'm glad I made it.

    Your video series is cogent and compelling (possibly redundant). Also, it is clear that you are not just 'winging' your narration, but are reading from carefully worked out arguments that you have recorded previously. Have you produced, or will you be producing, a written version of your series? Or, at the very least, do you have a transcript of your series?


    – s.west

  • I guess it would be more fitting to call them the "Repressive Left".

  • Just curious, but what about the argument that men who aren't homosexuals rape other men, and that is supposedly evidence that rape is power based rather than sexually.
    I was in the U.S. Air Force and at every briefing we were taught the radical messages you are talking about. I don't know if that's the right way to tackle that in such a conservative driven environment, especially when they discredit themselves in the eyes of the audience by claiming very radical ideas. We've had speakers come on and claim that every man there is a rapist and must control themselves. The moment she said that, we all rolled our eyes, and ignored her, b/c we believed this was just gonna be another man-bashing/man shaming talk. (i'm personally a liberal, liked the video, and am honestly curious on your take of this)

  • I wish Jimmy Dore would just kill himself. 😔🔫

  • I'm gonna start watching all of your content. Your breakdowns of topics are so consistent in their line of logic, as well as in their use of terms, and make things so easy to comprehend, it leaves me with no uncertainty by the conclusion. I've watched about 5 of your vids now, and I plan to watch plenty more. Really liking the content.

  • What was the connection between Galloway and rape apology/victim blaming?

  • As for the rape statistics , you're just plain wrong,
    Read the studies, or even better yet watch the excellent video by C0nc0rdance on the subject

  • Framing sexual violence as something abnormal is a bad thing? If it was portrayed in any other way, would that not be normalizing sexual violence? thinking

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *