The Plague of the Gentry’s Fake Victims

I was going to write a measured piece about how the failure of Nancy Pelosi to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. But really, who cares about impeachment any more?

Then I accidentally found out that my AT piece of two weeks ago on “Women, the Public Square, and the Cancel Culture” made it on Right Wing Watch and Patheos, where I am described as a “far right misogynist.” I can’t believe they said that!

More important is the flap over J.K. Rowling putting her head in the noose by tweeting on the notion that women are women whatever the transgender activists and the judges say. As a fashionable young yachtswoman said to the United Nations: “how dare you!”

I thought to myself: When the trans activists are canceling the feminist activists then the left has started eating its tail like the mythical Ouroboros. And whole thing about sex and gender and men calling themselves women and vice versa and everyone a victim is nothing but fake outrage, about fake victims.

And I thought. You know what? It’s not just the transgender activists; the whole LGBT thing is about “fake victims.” And the feminists started it.

It makes sense, of course. After the left had had a grand old time advocating for the workers and then nobly decreeing an end to the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws, along came women, posing as victims.

I’ll grant that lower-class women have had a rough time since whenever, but feminism was and remains a movement of gentry women for gentry women and by gentry women.

The stunning achievement of gentry feminism was to transform the victim racket from a politics that at least pretended to care for the lower orders into a purely upper-class racket.

Gentry women are not helpless victims, never were. They are “fake victims.”

If there are real women victims they would be the commoner and prole women condemned to life in the aftermath after the collapse of marriage in the lower orders.

And whose fault is that, gentry liberal feminist women? Far right misogynists?

You’d think there’d be hell to pay for the “unintended consequences” of feminism and the sexual revolution. But I predict that liberal gentry feminist women will get a pass. They always do. Because patriarchy.

Definition of “misogynist:” a critic of gentry women. Other women need not apply.

But back to our LGBT friends and the brilliant notion of “fake victims.” After gentry feminist women invented the genre, why not extend the fake-victim concept to another group of gentry liberals? Why should gentry feminist women have all the fun?  Gentry gays? No doubt about it, gays were being monstrously hunted down by bigoted fundamentalist Christian witch-hunting hate groups back in the day. And all gays wanted was a bit of respect and funding for AIDS.

Of course, in my young days, the gay-baiters were the lefties, because in England in the Sixties every lefty -- including the young Jeremy Corbyn, you think? -- knew that “poofters” were upper-class toffs like Lord Sebastian Flyte and his teddy bear in Brideshead Revisited. But now gays are helpless victims, and transgenders are supercalifragilistic helpless victims.

To understand the victim plague let’s reprise Curtis Yarvin’s Three Layers model in “The Clear Pill” that society is composed of gentry, commoners, and clients.

Okay, stop right there. Let’s call the “clients” by their real name: “victims,” originally real-ish victims, now totally fake victims. So,

We may call [our layers] gentry, commoners, and [victims]. The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the [victims] are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.

And if there aren’t any real victims out there to provide a warrant for more government power for the gentry we will create “fake victims” out of prosperous woke gentry activistes and we will import battalions of “migrants and refugees” from beyond the seas to make up the numbers in the victim rank-and-file. You see if we don’t.

The logic of politics requires an “us” and “them.” If there are victims, and we noble gentry are ethically mobilizing to defend them, there must be someone we are ethically mobilizing to fight against and cancel: employers, kulaks, running dogs, racists, sexists, homophobes, “far right misogynists,” baskets of deplorables. In other words, commoners.

And this reality leads directly to President Trump’s spot-on meme:

“In reality they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

If the sacred quest of the liberal gentry class is to protect all the helpless victims, then it must be protecting the victims from something. And that something is You.

Nothing personal, you understand. But when the liberal gentry folk decide to make a nice omelette for the victims, real and fake, they always break a few commoner eggs.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

I was going to write a measured piece about how the failure of Nancy Pelosi to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. But really, who cares about impeachment any more?

Then I accidentally found out that my AT piece of two weeks ago on “Women, the Public Square, and the Cancel Culture” made it on Right Wing Watch and Patheos, where I am described as a “far right misogynist.” I can’t believe they said that!

More important is the flap over J.K. Rowling putting her head in the noose by tweeting on the notion that women are women whatever the transgender activists and the judges say. As a fashionable young yachtswoman said to the United Nations: “how dare you!”

I thought to myself: When the trans activists are canceling the feminist activists then the left has started eating its tail like the mythical Ouroboros. And whole thing about sex and gender and men calling themselves women and vice versa and everyone a victim is nothing but fake outrage, about fake victims.

And I thought. You know what? It’s not just the transgender activists; the whole LGBT thing is about “fake victims.” And the feminists started it.

It makes sense, of course. After the left had had a grand old time advocating for the workers and then nobly decreeing an end to the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws, along came women, posing as victims.

I’ll grant that lower-class women have had a rough time since whenever, but feminism was and remains a movement of gentry women for gentry women and by gentry women.

The stunning achievement of gentry feminism was to transform the victim racket from a politics that at least pretended to care for the lower orders into a purely upper-class racket.

Gentry women are not helpless victims, never were. They are “fake victims.”

If there are real women victims they would be the commoner and prole women condemned to life in the aftermath after the collapse of marriage in the lower orders.

And whose fault is that, gentry liberal feminist women? Far right misogynists?

You’d think there’d be hell to pay for the “unintended consequences” of feminism and the sexual revolution. But I predict that liberal gentry feminist women will get a pass. They always do. Because patriarchy.

Definition of “misogynist:” a critic of gentry women. Other women need not apply.

But back to our LGBT friends and the brilliant notion of “fake victims.” After gentry feminist women invented the genre, why not extend the fake-victim concept to another group of gentry liberals? Why should gentry feminist women have all the fun?  Gentry gays? No doubt about it, gays were being monstrously hunted down by bigoted fundamentalist Christian witch-hunting hate groups back in the day. And all gays wanted was a bit of respect and funding for AIDS.

Of course, in my young days, the gay-baiters were the lefties, because in England in the Sixties every lefty -- including the young Jeremy Corbyn, you think? -- knew that “poofters” were upper-class toffs like Lord Sebastian Flyte and his teddy bear in Brideshead Revisited. But now gays are helpless victims, and transgenders are supercalifragilistic helpless victims.

To understand the victim plague let’s reprise Curtis Yarvin’s Three Layers model in “The Clear Pill” that society is composed of gentry, commoners, and clients.

Okay, stop right there. Let’s call the “clients” by their real name: “victims,” originally real-ish victims, now totally fake victims. So,

We may call [our layers] gentry, commoners, and [victims]. The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the [victims] are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.

And if there aren’t any real victims out there to provide a warrant for more government power for the gentry we will create “fake victims” out of prosperous woke gentry activistes and we will import battalions of “migrants and refugees” from beyond the seas to make up the numbers in the victim rank-and-file. You see if we don’t.

The logic of politics requires an “us” and “them.” If there are victims, and we noble gentry are ethically mobilizing to defend them, there must be someone we are ethically mobilizing to fight against and cancel: employers, kulaks, running dogs, racists, sexists, homophobes, “far right misogynists,” baskets of deplorables. In other words, commoners.

And this reality leads directly to President Trump’s spot-on meme:

“In reality they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

If the sacred quest of the liberal gentry class is to protect all the helpless victims, then it must be protecting the victims from something. And that something is You.

Nothing personal, you understand. But when the liberal gentry folk decide to make a nice omelette for the victims, real and fake, they always break a few commoner eggs.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.