By el gato malo at Brownstone dot org.

This article was originally published in January 2024.

Let's start with two simple axioms:

Certain sorts of the mentally ill seek power over others as they cannot control themselves. It's a way to try to substitute regulating the world around them for self-stability by making their own internal dysregulation seem fitting or laudable; it's environment as surrogate for self.

The anxious and insecure seek out powerful patrons/ideologies to which to conform in order to feel "safe." When you have little faith in your own identity or drives, the desire to be subsumed and validated by the will of others is a powerful opiate; again environment as surrogate for self.

The confluence of these two trends creates the alliance that is the DEI calamity: it's an externalization of internal instability.

It also ensures its endless escalation until it eats itself in a fiery singularity of absurdity because staying atop the hierarchy requires ever more intense and baroque protestations of marginalization and fealty.

Let's look:

United Nations offshoot and self-described champion of "safe spaces," UN women provides a particularly piquant example.

This is Munroe Bergdorf, the spokesperson (born a man, now doing business as a woman) they have chosen to pursue this goal.

Take a quick look at this picture.

What's the first phrase that pops into your head?

Whatever it was, I'll wager it was not "safe space."

But what if maybe it is?

What if maybe it's just a "safe space" for someone other than you?

Consider:

Per axiom 1 above, this is a very safe space for Munroe who clearly relishes the role of telling others what to think and what to do.

But what's in it for the UN women?

Well, per axiom 2 above, its devotees are looking for someone to tell them what to do and what to think so that they can be sure they are "good people" and then wield that assumed mantle of virtue like a mace to keep their fears of lacking identity at bay. The added benefit of being able to shrill outrage at any who disagree and the frisson of being beastly to others comprise a little taste of power that makes the whole idea irresistible.

It's a surreal codependent synergy made in precincts so mad that even the haters have fled in fear.

And the evidence is sort of everywhere. It's not like this has been subtle, there has just been an omerta around noticing the nudity of the emperor.

But when whatever pathology pervades such a "movement" keeps throwing up the same weird cross-gender dominatrix pastiches of women as "brave avatars to follow," at a certain point, wall of silence or no, some questions need to get asked.

The LA Times predictably gushed over it and deplored and denigrated any who would find fault.

See how it comes together?

People who are literally crazy get to play at "being in control," something they desperately relish and the hopelessly insecure get to pose with them and coo "How brave!" while getting their picture taken with people in hyper-sexualized domina apparel that would not look out of place in some of the more selective Berlin brothels.

Everyone gets to engage their fetish and proclaim it virtue.

It's their safe space.

It's also a performance space (which is why Hollywood loves it).

And making you unsafe and ever more insecure is a big part of it.

The whole system is a rigged game.

"You cannot judge a person by what they look like or wear!"

"Misgendering me is a hate crime!"

It boils down to:

"Guess what to call me!"

"WRONG!"

"I win!"

See the impossibility of the predicament?

This is because it's not rooted in logic or reasonableness or even sanity: it's a desire to be outraged so one may once more demand to correct and dominate others.

But this sure does go wild when it comes apart, doesn't it?

Suddenly your fearless "superhero" gets outed as fraud and their "origin story" about "forced conversion therapy" gets called into question as a Smollet-level fabrication.

Hardly a surprise when you selected for the cr...