Why Facts don't matter.
20260111
Male-brained me likes to live as if facts matter.
I review hundreds of books, the authors of whom mostly deal in facts. They are the heirs of the Enlightenment tradition. Rationalism. Scientific method and all that. Yesterday’s post included links to about fifty of them. Mostly writers with whom I agree, but also some prominent ones on the other side of the issue.
My attempt to foster logical discussion doesn’t matter. Writers like El Gato Malo point it out endlessly. Others, like J. Stone whose The Great Feminization I reviewed yesterday try to explain it. If
Today I copy, in its entirety, an explanation by Jared Taylor, one of my longtime favorite authors, whose books you will find among my reviews.
A theme I am developing is that the profound lack of logic provided by this feminized age offers great opportunities for the application of male logic to finding mispriced assets and invest accordingly. Women may not be logical, but they do have enough sense to be drawn to men of substance. My son’s objective should be to be such a man, attract a wife with a full complement of traditional female qualities, and be wise enough avoid fights with her as he manages family affairs according to his own logic. Be willing to accept advice, but don’t be browbeaten into swallowing stupidities.
That said, here is Jared Taylor. You can find the original, which I have copied here, by following the link to the Unz Review. Unz is successful enough, and controversial enough, to no longer accept comments. Comments from Monochrome Silver Spring, AKA Chevy Chase, will at least be tolerated.
Why Facts Don’t Matter to Them
Moral peacocking by the mentally impaired.
Jared Taylor • Friday, January 9, 2026 • 1,500 Words
This video is available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.
Years ago, I had a debate with a woman about race. At one point she said, “I’m a bleeding-heart liberal and damn proud of it.” I knew immediately she had just said something that left her open to attack, but I wasn’t quick enough to go on the offensive.
Why be proud to be liberal? Because liberals think that makes them better than we are. They think they’re compassionate, tolerant, generous; we’re mean-spirited and selfish. This becomes a central part of their identity — a feeling of moral superiority they hate to give up.
It’s dangerous to be proud of your politics. It means you have an emotional attachment to them that has nothing to do whether they make things better or worse.
If the policies you support make you feel virtuous, it’s a lot harder to wise up even when the results are horrible.
We’ve seen this over and over. For example, how is it possible to get headlines like this?
“Chicago man accused of setting train passenger on fire had 72 prior arrests.”
“Career criminal with more than FIFTY prior arrests and FORTY convictions brutally murders man with machete.”
This guy, who tried to kill a man by throwing him onto railroad tracks, had been arrested “dozens” of times. Every one of these stories, by the way, is from just last month.
A normal person sees these headlines and thinks “this is insane.” Those criminals should be locked up or — maybe even better — executed and dead.
Only people for whom facts don’t matter would set up a system like this or permit it to continue. I know you’ve heard phrase: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” There’s even an abbreviation for it: POSWID.
By that reasoning, anyone who ties the hands of the police, abolishes bail, appoints activist judges and prosecutors, must want criminals on the streets to mug or kill you. That must be the intent because that’s the result.
Wrong. Crazy libs didn’t build this system because they wanted more crime. They built it out of a raging sense of moral superiority. You see, they are paragons of compassion.
They believe poverty and “marginalization” cause crime, that the police are brutes, and that locking people up is primitive revenge that turns confused young people into killers. They think they can identify “at risk” youths and save them with love and counseling.
If that doesn’t work, it’s only because we didn’t try hard enough. We need more “programs,” more love, more counseling, more “violence interrupters,” more mentors, more absurd incentives like paying people to stay in school, more of anything but punishment.
And when one of their darling marginalized persons burns someone to death on the subway, they believe it would be barbaric to put him to death.
It is exquisitely difficult for people who believe these things to change their minds. They would have to give up something infinitely precious: their conviction that they are morally superior. It’s hard for anyone to admit he’s wrong. It’s much harder for moral peacocks to admit they’re wrong, because it means that the mean-spirited, bigoted people they despised for years — people like you and me — were right.
Oh, the horror!
You would get some of this in an all-white society, but it’s much, much worse in a jungle like the US. Besides preening themselves on their love for their fellow man, peacocks get the much bigger thrill of standing with the victims of slavery, the middle-passage, ICE raids, detention centers, red-lining, 400 years of white supremacy.
When facts are an obstacle to righteous indignation, it’s the facts that have got to go.
That’s why the peacocks must stay deliberately and forever blind to the most glaring fact about our rainbow country: that many of their pets don’t have enough brains and impulse control to behave like white people.
If people of color bring misery on themselves, that takes away the immense joy of being able to blame us, and there’s nothing more thrilling for white progressives than feeling so, so, so superior to “racists.” White people despising white people. That is the pinnacle of moral superiority.
And so, in the teeth of mountains of evidence, they jabber nonsense about biased tests and spout the craziest idea ever: that race is a social construct.
You cannot believe that unless you are mentally impaired, and what most impairs the liberal/egalitarian mind is this compulsion to feel morally superior. If you are deeply, emotionally attached to 2 + 2 = 5, if you think believing makes you a good person, it’s hard to see you’re wrong.
I’m not talking here about non-whites. They are completely different, and white liberals don’t understand them at all. Their “progressive” politics have nothing to do with virtue. It’s team sports, and they are on Team BIPOC.
Take Decarlos Brown, who casually stabbed Iryna Zarutska to death.
Who turned him loose despite all his felony arrests? Not white loonies. The magistrate who let him walk out the door, the clerk of the superior court of Mecklenburg County who nominated her and the senior resident superior court judge who appointed her were all black.
Not just black; professionally black, angrily black.
They weren’t peacocking. They just wanted to give the brutha’ another chance. Blacks are a cinch to understand. But it was white loonies who set up the system that gave a black woman the discretion to turn a killer loose on Charlotte, North Carolina .
There’s an excellent book called Pathological Altruism that helps you understand white people.
It points out that feeling righteous indignation stimulates the basal ganglia in the brain just as addictive drugs do. Peacocks can become addicted to that feeling. “I’m good. I’m really good, not like those selfish, racist brutes.”
But there’s a warning here for our side, too. Don’t let your basal ganglia fool you. Remember the phrase, “The purpose of a system is what it does”? It’s tempting to think the people on the other side aren’t just loony, but evil. They want more crime. They want us dead.
No, probably not. Remember: They think that if you care about the survival of white people, it’s only because you hate everyone else — that you want them dead.
They utterly fail to understand us. Don’t misunderstand them. Yes, it looked like German Chanceller Angela Merkel wanted to destroy Germany when she let in millions of brown men.
It’s just the sort of thing someone who wanted to destroy Germany would do. But she probably thought she was being wonderfully kind, atoning for Nazism, living the universal ideal, transcending race and religion, spreading sweetness and light. Pathological altruism. Deluded, not evil.
Do their motives matter? Maybe not. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” said Jesus, and the tree of progressive liberalism bears poisonous fruit. But quite a few on the other side still have to come our way for us to win. We are more likely to persuade them if we understand them.
I note the comment in this post about Angela Merkel. She was compassionate, caring, and kind to let it the million undocumented young men, because they were mostly young men of military age, and it brought about the end of her rule as "Muttie," the Queen of Europe. She had been in power so long that she knew that she could do no wrong, make no mistake.
In Germany today, all decisions on the political level are made with only one consideration. It cannot be like Nazi. The Germans are destroying their country and themselves to purge any semblance of Nazism from their collective souls. Even though none of them had anything to do with the Nazi movement, they are attempting to atone for past crimes made by the Nazi regime of the man with the funny mustache.
Germans these days are an angry people. It must be very hard to reject yourself and all your German qualities in an attempt to purge the Nazi past from their collective spirits. And even worse they are Germans and it was no accident that the holocaust happened in Germany.
Jordan Peterson has asked many times, what does it look like when the left goes too far? We know what the right looks like when it goes too far, but what about the left? The left is caring, compassionate, and feels responsible for the downtrodden, those that fell through the cracks of modern society. It's not their fault, say the collective mothers in society. They are the victims of a male dominated society. We must care for them, show love and tenderness, because they are not at fault, these perpetrators of crimes. They are victims who must be rehabilitated. It's not their fault. Life is cruel, too hard for them. The mothers press the poor unsuccessful children to their breasts and sooth them before they send them out to commit more crimes.
That is the excess of the left.
Thomas Pierce is totally correct! Especially his last line: "The mothers press the poor unsuccessful children to their breasts and sooth them before they send them out to commit more crimes."