• The Swagger
  • Posts
  • The Swagger #9 — Thursday Abbreviated Edition

The Swagger #9 — Thursday Abbreviated Edition

How We Got Here and What Scott Adams Says

In partnership with

Greetings from Pattaya, Thailand. Today will be an abbreviated edition of The Swagger, and NO PAYWALL!!! I've got two related things to cover of a cultural critique nature, something I find myself increasingly drawn to as a saner alternative to the incessant drone of The Current Thing (sociopolitical antagonism and drama).

... Because, if you're perceptive, and you clam down and give it some thought, you may find common threads—or roots, as it were—in just about everything and the roots are rotted out, and they're cultural in nature. Think about it and see if I'm not way off and wrong.

The reason for keeping it short is having bitten off a lot to chew. No need for countless details, the results are in. Big releases over the last few days on FreeTheAnimal.com, my day job.

It's crazy, the categories I've been covering on FreeTheAnimal.com for 20 years, in 5,500 posts, and comprising 5 million words. I can't stop. I'm an active participant in all of it. I'm the least vicarious living type person you ever met.

With all that accomplishment over a consistently long period of time, it's rather heartwarming in an ironic way when I get anonymous emails like this from time to time.

On 26 Mar 2024, at 22:48, m <[email protected]> wrote:

You were an ass with your first BS blog yrs ago and of course you still are with your mistaken views on trump
fuck off dirtbag

Charming. But I always chalk these things up as a 'cry for help.' These anons don't use a name because they don't want you to find a photo, and you know why they don't want you to find a photo; because if you did, everything becomes clear in full circle.

MaxAI.me - Outsmart Most People with 1-Click AI

MaxAI.me best AI features:

  • Chat with GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini 1.5.

  • Perfect your writing anywhere.

  • Save 90% of your reading & watching time with AI summary.

  • Reply 10x faster on email & social media.

... I happened to catch a Xweet by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame the other day, and it had me shaking my head in a good way, and I shot it off to a high-powered divorce lawyer friend in Palm Beach County, Florida who's a die-hard fan of Scott's daily podcast—a production I am unable to get all the way through, even once.

I find Scott to be a bit je ne sais quoi. Good guy and all, and I'm loath to criticize him harshly, but sometimes his substantial die-hard following mystifies me. The last time he came on my radar was when, some months back, he did an excruciatingly ridiculous analysis on how those who didn't take the jab were just stopped clocks; whereas he, with his thorough and exhaustive cost/benefit analysis, simply got it wrong this one and only time because something something something. LOL.

So here's what @ScottAdamsSays said:

Allow me to put a stake through the heart of DEI for you.

If DEI proponents wanted to achieve the kind of diversity that is good for every member of society, they would correct the Democrat/Republican imbalance in our most important companies.

A lack of Republicans on staff caused Twitter, Facebook, and Google to censor free speech for years before getting caught.

A lack of Republican voices in the corporate news business — excluding the FoxNews bubble — allowed over 20 major political hoaxes to flourish in the past 5-7 years. (The Right had a few too.)

A lack of Republicans destroyed the reputation of Harvard. Republicans would have added balance to leadership.

Google’s Gemini AI — literally the future of their business — died in the crib because of a lack of Republicans on staff.

I don’t think I need to list the other corporations that shot themselves in the feet because they had too few Republicans on staff. You know all the stories.

Now name something that broke because of too many Republicans. I’ll give you abortion, if that’s your l worldview. Now name another.

Hey, Black American men, do you want to increase your odds of success? Just copy Republicans. They have developed a mindset and a set of traditions that have always worked, no matter who uses the methods.

Democrats, on the other hand, are biased toward using victimization as a tool for success. That’s a female strategy. When men do it, it looks pathetic to both sides. It is a losing strategy for men. (Still good for women and children.)

But Black men, your DEI does not improve your access to the mentors and networking and winning mindset of Republicans. It does the opposite.

Are you thinking of getting a face tattoo and dropping out of school? Talk to a Republican before you do that. Any Republican. Anywhere. Any time. They will stop what they are doing and give you honest and useful advice.

And if you follow that advice, they will offer you a job or recommend you, because people who can take advice and implement it are like diamonds. Everyone wants them.

I’m a registered Democrat, but I grew up among Republicans and they are my current audience. I’m not guessing how they operate. You only hear about the fringe Republicans, the same way Republicans think Democrats are crazier than they are on average.

Now I will tell you, Black American men, something you would not be allowed to say in your bubble: The root cause of the DEI debacle is batshit crazy white women who don’t know how anything works outside the female experience.

Check the stats. Republican women literally have a fraction of the mental health issues of liberal women. Now look at the saucer-eyed Democrats on MSNBC and tell me they don’t look mentally ill. You see it.

Sure, some Republicans are also nuts, but it’s a matter of degree.

For women, DEI probably looks like a plus. For Black men, DEI is a huge source of systemic racism that didn’t need to happen.

And what I think about that is in the grand theater of modern socio-political discourse, it's a scathing critique, one that punctures the inflated balloon of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) with the precision of Occam's Razor. His argument, far from the garden-variety polemic, is a surgical strike at the heart of a pervasive narrative that has, for too long, gone unchallenged by the mainstream.

Adams posits a simple, yet revolutionary idea: the purported utopia of DEI, rather than being the panacea it's touted to be, is in fact a myopic endeavor that has spectacularly failed to grasp the essence of true diversity. It's not about a rainbow coalition of skin colors, genders, or sexual orientations, but rather the diversity of thought, the very bedrock upon which the edifice of progress is built.

The casualties of this oversight are glaring. The tech giants—Twitter, Facebook, and Google—once heralded as the vanguards of free expression, have morphed into Orwellian arbiters of acceptable thought, primarily because they embraced a monochromatic political ideology that eschewed balance for echo-chamber homogeneity. The media landscape, save for the isolated island of Fox News, became a chorus singing the same tune, allowing political hoaxes to proliferate with the virulence of a pandemic. Even bastions of academic excellence like Harvard have seen their reputations tarnished, not by a deficiency in intellectual firepower, but by an anemic diversity of political thought.

Adams challenges us to identify instances where an overabundance of Republican influence has led to systemic failures. It's a rhetorical gambit designed to spotlight the imbalance and prompt introspection. His advice to Black American men is unvarnished and devoid of the patronizing tone often adopted by the self-appointed saviors of the left. He suggests that success is not a proprietary formula locked within the GOP, but rather a set of principles and work ethics that transcend racial and political lines.

The real villain in Adams' narrative is not a political party or an ideology per se, but rather a subset of society he describes with unflinching candor: "batshit crazy white women." It's a provocative assertion, one that obliterates the polite veneers of discourse. Yet, it forces a confrontation with uncomfortable truths about the architects of the DEI agenda and their disconnect from the realities they purport to address.

Adams' critique is a clarion call to reevaluate the foundations upon which we build our societal ideals. It's a reminder that diversity is not a box-checking exercise, but a multifaceted endeavor that must encompass the full spectrum of human thought and experience.

In embracing this perspective, we're not merely indulging in iconoclastic contrarianism for its own sake. Instead, we're advocating for a genuine inclusivity that recognizes the value of dissenting voices, the necessity of political plurality, and the inherent dignity of individual thought. This is the path to a society that flourishes not in spite of its differences, but because of them.

On the heels of that bit, I stumbled upon something so related it makes you feel that there's a surge of revival coming.

"El Gato Malo" doesn't use capital letters...anywhere. Don't ask me. Must be a cat thing.

given the abject absurdity of so much of our current situation, it becomes perhaps inevitable that the question of “how on earth did we get here?” arises.

and it’s a good question.

a needed question.

how did we break politics and academia and society to the point where the madmen are running the asylum and the joker has become police commissioner of gotham?

how have we descended to the point where mayors of major cities are suing car companies because “cars that dress like that are asking for it!”

You get the reference to rape, but what he's talking about is the absurdity of the mayor of Chicago suing carmakers Kia and Hyundai for making vehicles that are too easy to steal (they're just begging to be stolen). It's a perfect upside-down, war-is-peace metaphor for the collapse of what used to be where civil society used to be.

He peers into the abyss of our collective madness, where rationality and traditional mores lay trampled under the jackboots of moral relativism and the perverse glorification of victimhood.

This isn't just a critique; it's an autopsy of a society that's decided to slit its own throat, bleeding out common sense in favor of a culture marinated in the bile of aggrievement. The culprit? A seismic shift from the terra firma of objective morality to the quicksand of "it's all cool, man." No, it fucking isn't. This isn't evolution; it's devolution—where the measure of a person's worth is weighed on a scale of how loudly they can proclaim their victimhood.

He's not just throwing shade; he's lobbing truth bombs. The notion that all viewpoints hold equal value is intellectual anarchy. It's a self-devouring proposition that chokes on its own illogic. By casting aside the anchor of objective morality, we've set sail on a sea of absurdity where the compass of common sense spins aimlessly.

In this carnival of the grotesque, victimhood is the main attraction, and the freak show is in town. We've erected a pantheon, not to the virtuous or the valiant, but to the most bruised and battered souls who've mastered the art of grievance. This perverse pageantry doesn't elevate; it excavates, digging us deeper into a pit of despair.

Prescription? A stiff shot of objective morality, chased with a dose of common decency. We need to recalibrate our moral compasses, to celebrate acts of genuine contribution and to shun the siren song of self-pity.

... We find ourselves in an era where the inversion of values isn’t just a passing trend but the norm, where the absurdity of suing car manufacturers for the crimes committed using their vehicles is entertained as a legitimate legal strategy. This is not the plot of a dystopian novel; this is the reality we're living in, where crime is not only legalized but celebrated, and dissent is treated as the highest form of treason.

The culprit behind this descent into madness? Moral relativism. A philosophy that not only undermines but actively attacks the concept of objective morality, leaving us adrift in a sea of subjectivity where every claim, no matter how outlandish, is given equal credence. This isn't just an attack on logic; it's an assault on the very foundation of civilization itself.

(And remember how I define the moral so that everyone can agree: the moral is that which is objectively good for the human organism. Immorality, the opposite. "Objective" means, "not up to anyone's feelings." You can argue about what's good or bad for people and there's plenty of room for that, but what's inarguable is that in the end, there's a final answer somewhere and that's what morality vs. immorality is, and it's fucking important.)

... Consider the notion that hard work and rational thinking are dismissed as mere "white values," a concept so grotesquely racist and yet paraded as progressive thought. This is the result of abandoning objective standards of morality and virtue for a grievance-based status system. In this system, status is not earned through meritorious deeds but claimed through victimhood, creating a perverse incentive structure that rewards the most dysfunctional elements of society.

The elevation of the mentally unstable and morally bankrupt to positions of authority and influence isn't just a failure of society; it's a condemnation of it. This isn’t about being "woke" or "politically correct"; it’s about the erosion of the very principles that allow civilization to flourish. When we reward the worst among us, we shouldn't be surprised when the fabric of society begins to unravel.

But there is a path forward, a way out of this madness: a return to this aforementioned objective morality. This doesn't mean imposing a rigid moral doctrine but rather recognizing that certain principles are essential for the survival and prosperity of society. It means understanding that not all ideas are equal, that some are inherently destructive and should be marginalized, not celebrated.

Marginalization isn't a dirty word; it's a necessary mechanism for preserving the health of society. It's about recognizing that certain behaviors are antithetical to the common good and taking steps to mitigate their influence. This isn't oppression; it’s self-preservation.

The collapse into moral relativism and the celebration of dysfunction isn't inevitable; it's a choice. And it's a choice that can be undone. But it requires the courage to stand up for objective standards of truth and morality, to reject the siren song of grievance politics, and to embrace the hard work of building a society based on principles that uplift rather than degrade.

This isn't about going back to a mythical golden age; it's about moving forward, armed with the wisdom of the past and the courage to face the challenges of the future. It’s about recognizing that objective morality isn’t just a philosophical curiosity but the bedrock upon which a healthy, functioning society is built.

The descent into madness isn't irreversible, but the path back to sanity requires us to reject the lies we've been told and embrace the objective truths we've been taught to doubt. It's a daunting task, but it's the only way to salvage what's left of our civilization and build something even greater. The choice is ours.

You start by essentially marginalizing the Left and most Democrats (some Republicans too, but that's a subject for a different article).

No mercy.

No quarter.

See you back here on Sunday for #10 of this new gig.

Join the conversation

or to participate.