Is Veganism the New Morality?

People are inherently competitive and status conscious, and one of the traditional ways many people competed was in religious devotion. Being overtly religiously devout allowed one to at least pretend to occupy a relatively high moral plane. That’s one way to maintain a good public image, and to make one feel good about oneself. But in the post-Christian West, people need to find other ways to strike a pose of moral superiority. One option, apparently, is veganism.

Writing in The Guardian, Saskia Sarginson relates that her adult children, who by the way live at home, are tormenting her with their veganism. (Hat tip: Justin D.)

[A]s a goodwill gesture, I have switched from cow’s to goat’s butter, although I am probably kidding myself that goat’s butter is acquired in a kinder manner.

My offspring cannot forgive this weakness. Particularly the butter. When they berate me for eating it, I am in turns angry, defiant and depressed. I feel hounded in my own home, and when I’m cornered, I resort to lashing out. After one particularly heated argument, Ed and I escape to the pub to recover. Ed orders scampi fries. I eat one and feel like a rebellious teenager. I know my feelings do not make sense.

“Where did I go wrong?” I wonder bitterly. “Why do they think they can bully me? They ate meat all their lives until about five minutes ago, and now I’m not allowed a tiny bit of butter.”

I’m aware that I sound like a petulant child. But it feels good to moan. Ed nods. “We pay the food bills, we enable them to be vegan, and yet we end up looking like the bad guys.”

“Exactly. It’s easy for them to be perfect,” I say. “They don’t have to worry about council tax and mending the washing machine. They’re still protected in their bubble at home.”

“Yes,” says Ed sadly. “But they do have the moral high ground. I think that’s what’s so difficult to accept.”

This is the adult children’s way of assuaging their egos. They’re losers sponging off their parents, but at least they’ve attained that vegan moral high ground. “Mom may pay the bills, but unlike us she can’t will herself to go full vegan. Ha!”
It’s the ego protecting itself.

But in any event, is veganism really the moral high ground? Where does that come from? Even Sikhs are not vegan, just vegetarian. Did I miss the part in the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle endorsed veganism? And can veganism still define the moral high ground even when it’s associated with a strip joint?

That headline is from Portland, Oregon. Pretty much had to be either Portland or San Francisco.

Which reminds me of a joke.

An atheist, a crossfitter, and a vegan walk into a bar…
I only know because they told everybody within two minutes.

But seriously, have these oh-so-moral vegans fully considered the possible consequences of their actions?

Why Does the New York Times Hate America?

Bertolt Brecht famously and facetiously asked if it wouldn’t be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another. Writing in the New York Times, Brett Stephens makes essentially the same proposal, only he doesn’t seem entirely facetious.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning…

Bottom line: So-called real Americans are screwing up America. Maybe they should leave, so that we can replace them with new and better ones: newcomers who are more appreciative of what the United States has to offer, more ambitious for themselves and their children, and more willing to sacrifice for the future. In other words, just the kind of people we used to be — when “we” had just come off the boat…

That used to be a cliché, but in the Age of [President Donald] Trump it needs to be explained all over again. We’re a country of immigrants — by and for them, too. Americans who don’t get it should get out.

Sorry to hear that native born Americans are not living up to the standards set for them by Brett Stephens and the New York Times. Allow me to offer, however, a modest proposal. Instead of having all those Americans leave the country, wouldn’t it be a lot easier for the comparatively much smaller number of liberal cosmopolitans like Brett Stephens to leave? Maybe they can find some other country where the people are not so, shall we say, deplorable. Stephens grew up in Mexico and lived in Israel, so there’s two possibilities right there. Hasta la vista, Brett.

I have always thought of the United States as a country that belongs first to its newcomers…

Well, a great many counterarguments can be made. Here, for a start, are approximately 400,000.

The Futility of ‘Men’s Rights’

It’s also ungrammatical because the subject is singular (1) and so it should read ‘1 out of 4 homeless people is a woman.’

But nobody likes the grammar police, so let’s move on to the substance. Meninist’s point is well-taken. The implicit message of the graphic is essentially, ‘You didn’t care about the homeless when you thought they were all men, but we’ll have you know that one out of four are is a woman!’

So I sympathize with Meninist’s point, but at the same time we have to recognize the futility of it. Men’s rights advocates can keep cogently pointing out these anti-male double standards from now until the end of the next glacial period but things will never change. They won’t change because the men’s rights advocates are fighting human instinct.

Humans evolved the instinct to protect women because the female has inherently greater reproductive value than does the male. A man has millions of sperm, but a woman has just one uterus. Sperm, therefore, is not a scarce resource, but a uterus is. The tribe, therefore, cares more about the welfare of women than of men, or at least non-elite men. Of course, society will prioritize the welfare of the ruling-class males, but not the males who are ruled.

While people often try to deny it, ‘women and children first’ is a real thing. When the Titanic sank, 75 percent of the women survived, but only 17 percent of the men. Some of the men who survived were later socially shamed. A few years ago, Jeff Ruby’s floating restaurant in Cincinnati came loose from its moorings and floated down the Ohio River, stranding 83 people. All the women were rescued before the men.

Men’s rights advocates make cogent points, but their movement is doomed to failure. If you go up against human instinct, you’ll lose every time. Sucks for men, but as the saying goes, it is what it is.

Generation Snowflake Discovers Violence

We’re seeing more and more instances of political violence being initiated by young leftists. This leftist violence started as a response to the political rise of Donald Trump, and reached a crescendo at Berkeley with a violent riot that shut down a talk by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. In just the latest incident, Evergreen State College in Washington is reportedly being terrorized by a roving gang of social justice warriors carrying baseball bats.

Young leftists are being seduced by violence, probably because they have so little prior experience with it. They’ve grown up basically supervised by adults 24/7, both in school and after school, and the adults never let things get out of hand. Bullying, which always existed in the society of children, is now actively suppressed.

Back when I was a kid, however, we were free range. Since kids were left to their own devices, things sometimes got out of hand and fights would break out. I can recall as early as first grade, shortly before the morning school bell, a couple of my classmates brawling on the grass in front of school. Nobody was hurt, since six-year-olds can’t do very much damage. I’m not even sure the teachers noticed or even cared. The fight was just boys being boys, and part of the vibrant tapestry of life. The school bell rang, and everybody reported to class like nothing had happened. Nowadays, school administrators might call the police, and there could be a lawsuit.

While today it might seem hard to believe, getting in fights and learning how to defend oneself was once a normal part of growing up. Personally, the last time I got into a fight was during a pick-up hockey match when I was 15.

In How Green Was My Valley, Richard Llewellyn’s classic story of growing up in Welsh coal country, the boy protagonist, Huw, is being abused by a bully at school. In order to deal with the bully, Huw’s father has him take lessons from a former boxer. After fighting the bully, Huw’s teacher beats him savagely with a stick. The boxer then avenges Huw by KO’ing the teacher right in front of the class.

Llewellyn’s novel won the 1940 National Book Award, and John Ford’s film adaptation won the best picture Oscar for 1941, beating out now-classic films such as Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon. The story itself is set in Victorian times, but the action seems so far removed from our own era that it may as well be medieval.

In any event, fighting probably does teach kids some valuable lessons. For one thing, it teaches that if you start a fight, you can expect your opponent to fight back. And then you learn what it’s like to be on the receiving end of violence. Bullying and initiating violence has always been a human temptation, but knowing that you might get hurt when your target fights back serves as a potent deterrent.

As so like little child bullies who have never learned their lesson, Generation Snowflake, since they’ve never been in a fight, think it’s fun to go around initiating political violence. They’re so narcissistic and solipsistic that the thought that their opponent might fight back probably doesn’t even occur to them. Still less do they stop to consider that their opponent might be more proficient at violence than they are. After all, your typical social justice warrior has zero fighting experience, and never lifts anything heavier than an iPhone. But as predicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect (the most ignorant are the most confident) they imagine they can kick ass with impunity. Maybe they watched too many of those ridiculous go-girl movies where the 120 pound female heroine goes around beating up 200 pound guys. Or maybe they just had too much smoke blown up their asses by their parents, teachers, and coaches constantly telling them how special they are.

Just this week, Andrew Bolt, a prominent Australian conservative, got suckered on the street by two leftist twerps. Bolt fought them both off, but the video reveals that neither Bolt nor the twerps know how to throw a punch properly. The leftists seem totally disoriented by the sheer fact that Bolt fought back.

Leftist Protesters get more than they bargain for when Andrew Bolt

I know that every generation has always been somewhat disdainful of the younger generation, but what are we to make of a generation that embraces the novel concept of a ‘microaggression’, while simultaneously believing that sucker punching your political opponents is cool?

It so happens that the vast majority of the people in this country who are most proficient with fighting as well as the use of weapons are actually on the political right. If the left wants to continue on the path of political violence, it won’t end well for them. Here, for instance, is an androgynous commie getting decked by a right winger at a protest in Portland.

ANTIFA Member Gets Knocked Out By Conservative in Portland

I suppose we can be thankful that these leftists are not more proficient at violence. Here, for instance, is a pic of the baseball bat gang from Evergreen State.

I don’t think they could use those bats to beat open a bag of Cheetos. They think they’re cool because they’re fighting ‘Nazis.’ They think the reason Hitler came to power was insufficient leftist violence. Of course, the real reason Hitler came to power was…too much leftist violence.

Academic Feminists Get Punked

I have to laugh whenever climate alarmists argue that we have to respect alarmist climate research because it is published in “peer reviewed” journals. Anybody who believes that peer review is some kind of unassailable imprimatur of legitimacy can’t possibly have much personal experience with the actual peer review process. As I was discussing with a colleague recently, the dreary incompetence of peer reviews is perhaps the most singularly disappointing aspect of the entire academic experience.

The deficiencies of peer review were hilariously exposed back in 1996 by Alan Sokal in his famous hoaxing of the postmodern journal Social Text. Sokal got the journal’s peer reviewers to approve a spoof article that argued, among other absurdities, that physics is a social construct.

Now comes recent news of another successful Sokal-like hoax. The journal humiliated on this occasion was a ‘gender studies’ outlet called Cogent Social Sciences. And this time the thing argued to be socially constructed was not physics but, ahem, the penis.

Penises are problematic, and we don’t just mean medical issues like erectile dysfunction and crimes like sexual assault. As a result of our research into the essential concept of the penis and its exchanges with the social and material world, we conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents signi cant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

Linking the ‘conceptual penis’ to climate change was clearly calculated to increase the paper’s chances of publication. As was the paper’s unambiguously anti-penis and anti-masculine perspective.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

The hoaxing authors clearly knew their audience and played to its man-hating prejudices. The paper may be filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, but the one constant is its anti-male narrative. As the authors themselves admitted,

We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal. . .

But could a nonsense paper taking the opposite position–that maleness is intrinsically good–ever publish in a respectable journal? That seems like a much tougher sell. The hoaxing authors essentially chose the anti-male position deliberately, because they knew that was the way to get published.

By agreeing to publish this anti-male nonsense, academic feminists not only revealed themselves as bereft of intellectual standards, but they contradicted their own feminist theory. Feminists argue that we live in a ‘patriarchy’ in which men control all of society’s levers of power, and use that power to actively oppress women. And yet, the patriarchy somehow allows ‘respectable journals’ to publish even hoax papers so long as they are anti-male.

That’s the ultimate contradiction that the feminist reviewers failed to acknowledge.

The Demise of Higher Ed: Yale Gives Awards to Infamous Crybullies

As just the latest milestone in the ongoing devolution of higher education, the formerly-great Yale University has bestowed a graduation award on the infamous snowflake student mocked by The Simpsons. The episode satirizes the notorious 2015 confrontation at Yale between campus crybullies and college master Nicolas Christakis. At the time, video of that confrontation went viral online.

The videos that Tablet exclusively posted last year, which showed a further 25 minutes of what was ultimately an hours-long confrontation, depicted a procession of students berating Christakis. In one clip, a male student strides up to Christakis and, standing mere inches from his face, orders the professor to “look at me.” Assuming this position of physical intimidation, the student then proceeds to declare that Christakis is incapable of understanding what he and his classmates are feeling because Christakis is white, and, ipso facto, cannot be a victim of racism. In another clip, a female student accuses Christakis of “strip[ping] people of their humanity” and “creat[ing] a space for violence to happen”…

That line is quoted at the 0:55 mark of the Simpsons excerpt below.

The Simpsons – SJWs at Yale

Of Yale’s graduating class, it was these two students whom the Nakanishi Prize selection committee deemed most deserving of a prize for “enhancing race and/or ethnic relations” on campus. Hectoring bullies quick to throw baseless accusations of racism or worse; cosseted brats unscrupulous in their determination to smear the reputations of good people, these individuals in actuality represent the antithesis of everything this award is intended to honor. Yet, in the citation that was read to all the graduating seniors and their families on Class Day, Yale praised the latter student as “a fierce truthteller.”

This, for a hysterical liar who accused one of the university’s most distinguished academic minds of inciting “violence” upon his own students.

What Yale ought to have done, as I wrote back when the original conflagration surfaced in November 2015, was instruct its students to “grow up.” Because the university failed to do this, thereby offering its implicit endorsement of the scurrilous charges hurled against two well-regarded members of its faculty, Nicholas Christakis eventually resigned as Master of Silliman College and his wife quit teaching at Yale altogether. And now, to add insult to injury, Yale has decided to award their tormentors as paragons of communal healing. It is a fittingly disgraceful coda to one of the most disgusting chapters in Yale’s recent history.

At this point, most of so-called higher education is at best a huge waste of resources, and at worst, a hub of political power for the radical left that is poisoning and degrading America’s culture and polity. The political right, if it were smart, would leave academia free to indulge its worst instincts until in eventually implodes.

How to Destroy Higher Education

A couple of weeks ago, we reported that the University of Arizona was using taxpayer money to pay students to police the speech of their fellow students. Now comes news that also UCLA is adopting similar measures against campus freedom.

The University of California-Los Angeles is offering to pay students to serve as “Social Justice Advocates” who will “educate” their peers about “systems [of] oppression.”

The Social Justice Advocates program seeks students who want to help their classmates “navigate a world that operates on whiteness, patriarchy, and heteronormativity as the primary ideologies,” and comes with a quarterly stipend, the amount of which has yet to be determined.

In a critique at, Tom Knighton summarizes the program’s objective as follows.

UCLA’s focus will be on really hammering home the “white men suck and should probably be dead” message. In case the students hadn’t heard it yet that day.

Sounds about right.

And what is the source of funding for UCLA’s version of the Red Guards?

The program is funded through the Bruin Excellence & Student Transformation Grant Program (BEST), which receives funding from the university’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and from Gold Shield, Alumnae of UCLA.

Thanks, ladies!

Meanwhile, in a remarkably authoritarian piece at Time magazine, Lisa Wade, PhD, advocates banning campus fraternities.

I make no claims that it will be easy. Fraternities have dominated campuses, defied authorities and rebuffed efforts at suppression for nearly 200 years. But in that time we have ended slavery, given women the vote and put men on the moon. Of course we can get rid of fraternities. College presidents, administrators and trustees just have to muster the will to do it. As for the rest of us, we need to keep pressure on them to do so, and keep counting the bodies until they act.

Well, if feminists like Lisa Wade succeed in making college campuses inhospitable to men, then men are going to stop attending. The college experience is a good, produced and marketed by an industry, and sold to a consumer. If feminists keep ramping up the hostility to men, at some point, men are going to drop out of the market for the college experience. And if men stop attending, then straight women are not going to want to attend either. That won’t leave sufficient demand to sustain the system of higher education as we know it, and so eventually, the system will collapse.

Right now, the universities are one of the primary power bases of the political left. If the political right were smart (lolz), they would be actively seeking some way to destroy the universities. A direct political assault would meet with stiff resistance. But here’s a strategy that would work:

Step 1. Let radical feminists take over the universities.

Step 2. Wait.

Step 3. Winning.

A Generational Decline in Testosterone

Ever wonder how, in just three generations, American males went from G.I.s who defeated the Nazis and the Japanese Empire to whiny Pajama Boys who think Barack Obama is cool? Well, I’m just throwing this out there: maybe it has something to do with low-T. Several studies have found that contemporary western males have significantly lower testosterone levels than same-age males had roughly 30 years ago. A couple of studies first reported the secular decline in testosterone about ten years ago. One study focused on men in Massachusetts over age 45.

“Male serum testosterone levels appear to vary by generation, even after age is taken into account,” said Thomas G. Travison, Ph.D., of the New England Research Institutes (NERI) in Watertown, Mass., and lead author of the study. “In 1988, men who were 50 years old had higher serum testosterone concentrations than did comparable 50-year-old men in 1996. This suggests that some factor other than age may be contributing to the observed declines in testosterone over time.”

For men 65-69 years of age in this study, average total testosterone levels fell from 503 ng/dL (nanograms/deciliter) in 1988 to 423 ng/dL in 2003.

Another study published the same year found similar results for men in Denmark. But that was 10 years ago, and I was wondering if any follow-up studies had been done since then. All I managed to find was a 2012 study from Finland. This study also found a secular decline in testosterone.

We analysed serum levels of testosterone, gonadotrophin and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) in 3271 men representing different ages (25–74 years) and birth cohorts within three large Finnish population surveys conducted in 1972, 1977 and 2002…The more recently born Finnish men have lower testosterone levels than their earlier born peers.

French leftists protesting in skirts

Notably, the fall in T-levels cannot be fully explained by changes in health or lifestyle such as obesity or smoking. Some other environmental factors must be responsible, but nobody knows which. Speculation involves a wide range of possibilities, everything from endocrine disruptors in plastics to tight underwear!

Whatever the cause, I wonder if this change in hormone levels has implications for male behavior and social outcomes. For instance, could low-T have an effect on marriage or divorce rates? And what about birth rates? (There is some mixed evidence suggesting that sperm also has declined in both quality and quantity.)

Right now, violent crime rates in America are at their lowest level in about 50 years. Could the drop in violent crime be caused at least in part by diminished male aggression due to lower testosterone?

Low T might offer some benefits, like maybe lower crime rates, but the fact that some unknown factor is adversely affecting men’s health is nonetheless disturbing. And yet, nobody seems to care. As far as I know, there is no concern among advocacy groups or public health officials regarding the problem of secularly declining testosterone. Some endocrinologists have an academic interest in the issue, but it does not show up on the radar screen of people working in public health.

Imagine, however, if the sexes were reversed, and it were women instead of men who had exhibited a long-term decline in hormone levels. In that case, it would be a genuine public health crisis. We would all know about the problem, and the subject would be discussed endlessly on The View.

But when it happens to men: crickets. Men take note: Society does not care about you.

Making Headlines in America: 21st Century Slavery

Media outlets around the country carried the recent story of the woman who purchased a handbag at an Arizona Walmart and found hidden in the bag a desperate note, purportedly from an enslaved Chinese worker. Here is a translation of the note.

Inmates in the Yingshan Prison in Guangxi, China are working 14 hours daily with no break/rest at noon, continue working overtime until 12 midnight, and whoever doesn’t finish his work will be beaten. Their meals are without oil and salt. Every month, the boss pays the inmate 2000 yuan, any additional dishes will be finished by the police. If the inmates are sick and need medicine, the cost will be deducted from the salary. Prison in China is unlike prison in America, horse cow goat pig dog (literally, means inhumane treatment).

Nonprofit groups like China Labor Watch are accusing Walmart of not doing enough to prevent sourcing of goods made with slave labor. For its part, Walmart says it is investigating.

“We’re making contact with the customer and appreciate her bringing this to our attention. With the information we have, we are looking into what happened so we can take the appropriate actions,” Ragan Dickens, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said in an e-mail to the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Of course, it’s possible that the note is not authentic, since anyone who handled the bag between China and Arizona could have inserted the note. Walmart should nonetheless investigate, and if they find evidence of slave labor, they should definitely act to rectify the situation.

Meanwhile, non-profit groups seem to be much less concerned about another recent report about slavery even though it took place right here in the USA. You read that right–slavery in modern America. The story comes from Filipino-American journalist Alex Tizon who revealed shortly before he died that he and his family owned a slave.

Her name was Eudocia Tomas Pulido. We called her Lola. She was 4 foot 11, with mocha-brown skin and almond eyes that I can still see looking into mine—my first memory. She was 18 years old when my grandfather gave her to my mother as a gift, and when my family moved to the United States, we brought her with us. No other word but slave encompassed the life she lived. Her days began before everyone else woke and ended after we went to bed. She prepared three meals a day, cleaned the house, waited on my parents, and took care of my four siblings and me. My parents never paid her, and they scolded her constantly. She wasn’t kept in leg irons, but she might as well have been. So many nights, on my way to the bathroom, I’d spot her sleeping in a corner, slumped against a mound of laundry, her fingers clutching a garment she was in the middle of folding.

To our American neighbors, we were model immigrants, a poster family. They told us so. My father had a law degree, my mother was on her way to becoming a doctor, and my siblings and I got good grades and always said “please” and “thank you.” We never talked about Lola. Our secret went to the core of who we were and, at least for us kids, who we wanted to be.

After my mother died of leukemia, in 1999, Lola came to live with me in a small town north of Seattle. I had a family, a career, a house in the suburbs—the American dream. And then I had a slave.

Needless to say, owning a slave in America is highly unlawful. In fact, it’s unconstitutional! And how long was this poor woman enslaved in America? Fifty-six years, until she died. U.S. government authorities allowed this family to traffic the slave into the country, and then never did catch up with them for fifty-six years. Good job!

Now I’m wondering: How many other immigrants are bringing slaves with them to America? How many slaves live among us in America today? What is the government doing about it? Not much, if the Tizon case is any indication.

Walmart may or may not have a slavery problem. But the federal government surely does. Maybe I’m biased, but I frankly have more confidence in Walmart’s ability to clean up its act than I do in the federal government’s.

Meanwhile, Tizon the slaveowner actually published a bestselling book about how America is racist toward Asian males like him. The book is apparently an assigned text for many of the proliferating college courses on victimology. The Seattle Times called his book “a devastating critique of contemporary American culture.”

Tizon’s arguments in the book seem to be based primarily on personal anecdotes of slights he perceived to have received from Americans on account of being Asian. Tizon’s book may well have some merit, but even though the book is autobiographical, he never mentions his slaveowning. I guess it would tend to undermine his narrative as a victim of discrimination if he admitted to owning a freaking slave.

Meanwhile, in racist America, Tizon somehow managed to live in affluent neighborhoods, attend the best schools, win a Pulitzer Prize, and write a best-selling book. By his own admission he “had a family, a career, a house in the suburbs—the American dream.”

Too bad his slave never had those same opportunities.

Why China Will Dominate the 21st Century

I’m frankly amazed that the Chinese, despite having almost no national experience with Western-style political institutions, have somehow been able to quite accurately diagnose the ideological disease afflicting Western politics.

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo, or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity?…

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Apart from some anti-hegemonic sentiments, the connotations of ‘white left’ in the Chinese context clearly resemble terms such as ‘regressive liberals’ or ‘libtards’ in the United States.

My own preferred term is actually ‘shitlib.’ But ‘baizuo’ is a totally cool term that I intend to start using. To be understood when speaking, however, it’s necessary to correctly pronounce the Chinese tones. ‘Bai’ has a rising tone, and ‘zuo’ a falling-rising tone.

Here’s another bit of impressive wisdom displayed by the Chinese.

Although economic disparity in China has been worsening in recent years, sociologist Yu Xie found that most Chinese people regard it as an inevitable consequence of economic growth, and that inequality is unlikely to give rise to political or social unrest.

That’s precisely the attitude conducive to economic growth.

In an academic-style essay that was retweeted more than 7000 times on Weibo, a user named ‘fantasy lover Mr. Liu’ ‘reviewed’ European philosophy from Voltaire and Marx to Adorno and Foucault, concluding that the ‘white left’ as a ‘spiritual epidemic’ is on its way to self-destruction. He then stated that Trump’s win was only “a small victory over this spiritual epidemic of humankind”, but “western civilization is still far from its self-redemption”.

Yet, Freedom! Analysis: TRUE.

If China can somehow manage to inoculate itself from the disease of shitlibbery, it will have a huge advantage over the West, and will quite possibly surpass the West in both economic and social terms.