Crashout Politics
Chaos, Delusion, and Feminism
On the morning of January 7th, in Minneapolis, ICE agents were conducting a lawful exercise pursuant to their general mandate to arrest foreign nationals present in the country illegally when one of their vehicles became stuck in the snow. As is the case anytime such operations are conducted in blue areas, a hostile mob quickly surrounded the disabled convoy and began menacing the officers. Renee Good, 37, arrived at the scene and immediately inserted herself into the situation, maneuvering her car into position to block the road. Her lesbian partner, travelling with her, exited the vehicle, a Honda Pilot, and began filming the scene. Having been told by the officer closest to her to get out of the vehicle as a prelude to being detained, she chose instead to drive away at her companion’s urging. An ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle as it began moving towards him opened fire, hitting Good and killing her instantly, her vehicle careening forward a short distance before colliding with another car.
Everything about the scenario I just painted remains controversial to some extent, though of course much of the cloud of lies surrounding it is being dissipated by the internet. The narrative of her being a simple mother unconnected to the wider protests, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is of course untrue, unless the public is expected to believe that her blocking the road right in front of ICE while her partner filmed everything was the way anyone would spontaneously react to finding themselves in that situation. There is still debate as to the exact depth of her involvement and training on the part of the sinister cabal of leftist NGOs and activists groups coordinating the mayhem, but there is no denying she made the conscious choice to insert herself into a tense situation and commit a deliberately provocative act that set in motion the violence that followed. I suspect that in the coming days, more information will surface that will dispel more of the nonsense making its way around the media. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore, and leftist martyrs don’t have quite the same shelf life as they once did.
But what is more interesting to me than the specifics of this particular death are the circumstances surrounding it, the thought-world of the leftist agitators who seem so willing to risk their lives and safety to prevent the police from arresting criminals. It’s not surprising that a woman died, nor that the reaction was so strongly gender-coded. The anti-ICE protests have a strongly feminine character to them, and the widespread support for violence among liberal woman is manifestly the driving force behind them:
The refusal of liberals and the left to accept the results of legitimate elections and wage war on the will of the people despite claiming validation on exactly those grounds is simply another facet of the great post-Enlightenment war on civilization on the part of those who claim a mandate to remake society according to their notion of progress. This force is the most destructive in human history, an endless cycle of revolution and anarchy going back to 1789, with antecedents. It manifests in different modes in different places, according to the nature of those receptive to it, but everywhere bears the same character, a deadly and intractable pride rooted in a (and resulting in further) distortion of the soul, such that any connection to tradition and transcendence is rejected in favor of the imposition of theory by force of will.
In the anti-ICE mobs we see the dynamic at play in the form of feminism. Throughout history, prior to the Enlightenment, society was fundamentally organized around related principles rooted in both spirituality and biology- men are physically larger and stronger than women, and women (and only women) can bear children. This made men and women, each in their own way, both powerful and dependent on the other. Only men could be kings and warriors, but only women could produce them. This need for a functioning dynamic between the sexes informed every aspect of life. Christianity’s solution to this was to accept that certain spheres of life were restricted to one or the other sex, and that men would rule, but as Christ ruled His Church, with a positive duty to protect and even die on their behalf, with women bearing the same divine dignity as their male counterparts.
But as Patrick Deneen notes, liberalism is about the removal of constraints, and, per Philip Pilkington, concerned with rationalizing relationships and abolishing hierarchies. Once the spiritual part is discarded, there are only the biological restrictions on the realization of full equality- in a worldly, material sense- between men and women. This is plausible if you assume at the outset that man as an animal is a great blank canvas onto which progress can be painted. But the full weight of hundreds of years of liberalism, even in the face of the seeming conquest of nature in so many other areas, have put only slightest dents in human nature, and the very real differences between the sexes.
Are there any men doing this?
The foundational, uninterrogated theory that equality in every sense should be possible, and yet isn’t, can only be experienced by feminists as comprehensive injustice. They are of course aware that they have full legal equality with men in Western societies, though unaware or uninterested in the fact that they are in many ways privileged over them, but this comes with the knowledge that the order that enforces their rights in a liberal democracy remains a masculine one. Women do not occupy positions of power in proportion to their numbers because- despite the system’s best efforts- they do not occupy positions of violence in like ratio. Women have such power as they do because some men are committed to preventing other men from removing them, men willing to do violence in their name. Their equality is thus contingent on men assuming a role as its guarantors. The paradox of male violence being both threat and security feminists have labeled, “the patriarchy.”
At it’s core, apart from the pride that animates all Enlightenment ideologies, are two emotions coexisting in a fine Freudian ambivalence, fear and envy. Christians have as their model The Virgin Mary, the Blessed Theotokos, who freely chose to be the vessel of the Incarnate God, glorious beyond all other humans, to whom the most powerful kings of the earth must bow. Feminists have no heaven, only the here and now, a world in which indifferent forces of natural selection have set women up with intolerable physical handicaps relative to men. On a fundamental level, feminism posits femininity as weakness, with women as eternal victims of a system set up to oppress them at every turn, and like all weak people, they can only experience strength in others as a terrifying threat. Like Nietzsche, the feminist projects her weakness outward as a compulsion to conquer and dominate others. But unlike Nietzsche, this is conceptualized not as daydreams of being a Homeric hero, but, rather, deconstructing the ideals that would produce one, or any other variety.
I’m sure the kids in this class learn all about Homer.
This is where the envy presents. Every natural slave is a natural tyrant. The feminist can only conceive of men as being consumed with an urge to control them, because they themselves long to control others, and can imagine no other dynamic. The patriarch is a figure of both loathing and longing, something to be destroyed, but also to become. Violence is seen as the defining feature of manhood, which is to be feared, but also neutralized on the part of men and appropriated by women. The animating principle of feminism politically is therefore to remove the male capacity for violent action from individual men and sublimate it into institutions where authority is diffused such that accountability becomes impossible, yet feminist control is absolute.
I don’t often agree with her, but she nailed it here.
Thus, men within the orbit of feminists will be removed or co-opted as possible. The sort of men feminists will tolerate within their sphere are of a type that other men generally find loathsome- emasculated, sobbing cringepuppets who project total deference to a project committed to undermining and destroying them:
The natural role of men as protectors of the community is wholly deconstructed by hegemonic feminism into one in which those same men are made to parade their obedience to dogmas that subvert and destroy that security. Below, we see the queering of law enforcement:
Thus, as noted above, the whole character of the protests against ICE on the streets or among blue area leaders, whether on the part of men or women, is manifestly feminine. The whistles and yelling and insults present less as civil disobedience than repulsive nagging. The protesters show an obvious, malign glee in their taunting, doing everything they can to provoke violence, in the general expectation that they will not actually experience it. They are- males and females alike- the sort of women who abuse men because they count on them being too chivalrous to seek physical redress themselves, or, failing that, that some other men will come in to rescue them.
This sense of abusive arrogance is central to feminism- preening victimhood masking privileged distance from the circumstances brought about as the logical endpoint of the policies they favor. The illegal immigrants they rant about live far from them, or else are encountered as servants. That they come from countries where women are routinely abused in ways that Western women could never imagine, and that sexual abuse is a routine part of the culture in many of these places matters to them not at all, or else offers a kind of subconscious frisson in knowing that such violence is being directed at those beneath them. Likewise, the ICE agents present as red state white men of the most contemptible kind, and encouraging attacks on them only serves to reinforce the feminist sense of entitlement. She can pick up a Starbucks, cruise over to the scene, yell some profanity for Tik Tok engagement, and go home, patting herself on the head that she’s fighting the system, which is to say, the men risking their lives and safety to remove dangerous foreign criminals from their midst.
But this cognitive dissonance manifests in other interesting ways. The above video attracted a lot of comments pointing out the underlying psychosexual tensions. Social conditioning notwithstanding, in the end, men are men and women are women, and there is no dynamic between them that does not include that dimension. The sorts of men feminists will tolerate in their midst are just as repulsive to them as they are to normal men, thus leading to a disheartening situation for the feminist in that her fear of men, and envy of them, prevents her from forming the sort of relationship with them that might actually make her happy.
Above, a woman who’s lived a very hard 42 years wants a boyfriend who will ride around with her and commit federal crimes on her behalf. Don’t let this one get away, boys.
The spectacular amounts of mental illness among liberal women are a testament to the depths to which this miserable ideology can drag someone. There is no right wing equivalent to this:
If you think she’s being uncharitable in never forgiving MAGA, you should know the full context. MAGA gave her that haircut.
You know the statistics. Their ideology has rendered them wholly despondent, but to the AWFL, the only cure is more of the same. It inculcates a self-loathing that manifests in an urge to spread itself to others, to try to shore up a fragile sense of self, dissolving loneliness into a mob and meaninglessness into fervent action, each of which only serves to further the pattern of self-destruction, with despicable men cheering it on. In the case of the anti-ICE mob in Minneapolis that day, it eroded their capacity for empathy such that none of the people there could imagine how their actions might be interpreted and dealt with by the armed men they were harassing. And in the end, like all delusions, it leads to a confrontation with reality that can only be tragic.
“Why did you have real bullets?” Sadly, because they were the only reality that could dispel the fantasy.
Renee Good was my enemy. She dedicated at least the final years of her life to destroying the rule of law in my country and flooding it with foreign criminals, helping to prop up conditions of mass fraud and corruption. All of this was in the service of a network of traitorous NGOs and nonprofits for whom she was just a useful and expendable tool. They will stand on her tombstone and cry out for money, which they’ll get, and use to train the next ‘legal observer’ to put herself in harm’s way.
I don’t hate her, or the people who are trying to be her. Even as I hope they’re driven from the streets, arrested, and removed from any influence in public life, I can respect that the spirits of the air never rest, and are always looking for a vulnerable point of entry, and as a man, I pity them. No one should celebrate her death, however justified it was, and I write hoping that maybe just one person in similar circumstances might read this and reconsider his or her actions. Pray for her soul, and for her family, and that the civil authorities act to prevent this from happening again.
The woman in the video is deeply saddened by the death of Renee Cook, such that she is sobbing and shaving her head in remembrance. The dead woman’s name was of course Renee Good.
Proving once again that the etymology for hysteria is spot on.
You're on fire with this one.
On the topic of their nagging tone, I recall some really psychopathic words and tone during the Portland idiocy a few years ago. Young female egging on her masked soyboys to violently beat someone. Gavin McInnes called these people "shit chests". There is something reminiscent here, a taunting and morally discordant manipulation of masculine chivalry and empathy. It really sets off my Krazy detector.