Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Beware the Pattys, Not the Karens
From Casey Chalk’s piece at CRISIS Magazine, We Are All Karens Now:
The French philosopher Simone Weil wrote, “The fact that a human being possesses an eternal destiny imposes only one obligation: respect.” As Catholics, we are called to see people as individuals, created in the image of God, who are worthy of love and respect. “Human persons are willed by God; they are imprinted with God’s image. Their dignity does not come from the work they do, but from the persons they are,” wrote Saint John Paul II in Centesimus annus.
As a Catholic and a conservative and a middle-aged white woman (ahem), I’m totally onboard with those sentiments. No one is without sin or bad behavior, including public tantrums. This gets to the heart of the Christian ethos and explains how the Social Justice movement is anti-Christian: it is without mercy. Without forgiveness. The Karens of the world are simply people who’ve been caught behaving badly on camera. There isn’t a person reveling in their cancellation who isn’t in need of forgiveness for some similar bad behavior at one time or another. Not one.
The Pattys, however, are another story. “Patty” refers to Patty Hearst, the granddaughter of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, who became famous for her kidnapping and brainwashing by the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974. To my knowledge, Stella Morabito (Why Do So Many White Women Hate Themselves?) is the first to make the comparison between Hearst and the woke white women torching and terrorizing our communities and verbally abusing policemen — including policemen of color (POC). She contends they have been similarly brainwashed and convinced to hate who they are:
They isolated her in a closet and put her through Maoist-style indoctrination sessions, schooling her in “white privilege” and “systemic racism” even though those terms were not yet in wide circulation. They explained to her that “Amerikkka” was a racist and evil society. Day after day, they called her a privileged “bourgeoise bitch” and her father a “pig of the corporate fascist state.” She duly memorized the propaganda they assigned her, and though she was harassed and even raped, she was also fed and sheltered.
Isolation and predatory alienation were key to Hearst’s transformation. Separated from any familiar influences, she became totally dependent on her captors and bonded with them. Once cemented, that Stockholm Syndrome bond is not easily broken. When Hearst agreed to join the SLA after six weeks in captivity, she emerged with the new identity “Tania” and publicly disavowed her family.
After most of the active SLA members were killed weeks later in a shootout with police, Hearst had countless opportunities to simply walk away. Instead, she remained a fugitive with a small SLA remnant for the next 16 months. She later said her brainwashing was so thorough that she had no free will, no sense of self, and couldn’t think her own thoughts.
Isolation, indoctrination, “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” Amerikkka — sound familiar? America, honey, we’ve got to get our kids out of these corrupt and corrupting institutions. Why would we do this to our daughters? How can we rationalize subjecting them to one more day of this brainwashing? Look at the monsters they’ve become (language warning):
https://twitter.com/i/status/1275225615583588352
Save the Pattys; save America.
Published in General
Well, arguably they only scream threateningly at policemen because they know it’s actually safe to do so.
In one of his saner moments (a couple years ago now, sadly) Jonah Goldberg expounded on how the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” was just a relatively happy fable because the King wasn’t really a mean person. But if the story had involved someone like Kim Jong Un or Stalin, the kid and his family – and heck maybe everyone else in their town – would have been slaughtered.
I make the same argument about things like Mahatma Ghandi. In fact the British government was already pretty good, because if they hadn’t been already quite civilized, if they’d been the ChiComs for example, or Kim Jong Un or Stalin – if they were actually as bad as they were accused of being – they would have just rolled over him with a tank and carried on as before. And it’s the same thing now, Karens (or Pattys, etc) only yell threateningly at the police because because they know that the police aren’t as bad as they say. IF they were that bad, the Karens (Pattys, etc) wouldn’t stand a chance.
Yes, good “thoughts.” Women are inclined toward collectivism in all its forms. Remember #StrongerTogether? Hillary’s campaign motto and, (un)ironically, the definition of fasces — root of fascism.
This collectivist mentality is the natural response to “needing men like a fish needs a bicycle.” For the security women naturally desire, they look to the state rather than a husband, a father, a brother, an extended family which includes men in naturally protective roles. It used to be women who didn’t have male protectors through no fault of their own married themselves to Jesus (as in “get thee to a nunnery”). Now they marry themselves to government.
That explains women and their nature. What’s the excuse for men, though?
I’ve made the same argument. The passive resistance movements had the benefit of their highly civilized, dare I say Christianized, “enemy.” The Left we’re combating does everything in its power to make nonviolence a non-option.
Women’s nature has been declared admirable, including its innate weakness(es). Men are encouraged to emulate women’s weaknesses in addition to their own weaknesses.
Tyrants and despots love weakness in their subjects.
I think I’ve seen more than a couple of times (white) protesters, sometimes women, taunting and running in front of an advancing rank of policemen and getting thrown to the ground and their response, and everyone around them, is a surprised and less strident, “Hey! you can’t do that!”
They really think this is a reality show.
Short answer: Some men are just lazy, and some will go along with that kind of garbage so that “woke” women will have sex with them.
There are some other aspects too, that I won’t get into here because it would likely be… unpopular.
And there’s also a lot of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru9e2rTHeuk
I think you missed the most prevalent motivation for collectivism — power. Men especially want power over other people and socialism is all about concentrating power.
I think it was wrong to lower the voting age to 18. And I think it will be wrong to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. (And illegal aliens. And come to think of it felons, and prisoners, too.)
Most 18-year-olds don’t know the first thing about what life is about, or what good governance is. And this irresponsibility shows itself by states that have raised the drinking age and cigarette purchases to 21. How can a government allow itself to be chosen by people it itself doesn’t think are responsible enough in their day to day lives?
Or they were “spinsters”. My in-laws’ marriage certificate lists the occupation of my mother-in-law at age 19 as “spinster”. Spinsters generally worked.
Interesting.
Yes, but if MOST men wanted power, they wouldn’t cede it so willingly to others, and socialism would fail before it even got started.
I ain’t afraid of no Patty.