Signaling Gone Stupid: A Case Study

The longer I observe leftists, the more convinced I become that leftism is a form of severe brain damage that prevents the sufferer from accurately processing information and coming to sensible conclusions based upon this information. The leftist is a severely deluded individual, incapable of seeing the world and other people as they truly are.

The Huffington Post remains the gold standard, consistently sourcing case studies in disordered SWPL thinking masquerading as progressive confessions of faith. Today’s study is an article endeavoring to explain non-SWPL psychology to HuffPo’s righteous readership as it relates to the topic of “good schools” and “diversity.” In “Why White Parents Won’t Choose Black Schools,” a delighted Abby Norman informs us that she sends her young daughter to a majority non-white public school:

Though my daughter is not the only white kindergartener in my neighborhood, she is the only white kindergartener in her class. 

She then promptly uses seizes upon the opportunity to snidely pass judgment upon her unenlightened white neighbors:

My new neighbors, ones who come into the neighborhood raving about how much they love it, do not send their kids to the school. While they love my neighborhood, they do not love my school

This is precisely what I mean when I say that leftism is a mental illness. When the impulse to virtue signal one’s prog bona fides is stronger than the parental drive to ensure that one’s offspring has the best possible life chances, there can be no question that such prioritization is the effluvia of a profoundly disordered brain. Yet, rather than recognizing her illness and convinced that she is doing The Right Thing, Ms. Norman casts aspersions upon her perfectly rational white neighbors for coming to the perfectly sensible decision of not sending their kids to dysfunctional, ghetto schools.

For starters, there are perfectly valid reasons for parents to avoid majority-minority (read: black) schools if they possess the means to do so. The short answer to Norman’s question-cum-statement: because these schools suck. Objectively. In myriad ways. Firstly, integrated schools are terrible for everyone involved, psychologically and academically. Secondly, schools with a majority black populations are invariably the most dismal performers across all markers of academic achievement. Thus, white parents who truly care about their children want to ensure that their children are not psychologically scarred by being the only whites in an “integrated” school and additionally want to ensure that their kids will actually learn things of value rather than being trapped in some shithole where student IQ ranges from mildly retarded to below average. This would be the responsible course of action for any parent who appreciates the value of a solid foundational education.

Naturally, none of these considerations went into her choice of school. Rather than considering the eminently reasonable position of her fellow parents she comes to the conclusion that:

Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black.

Translation: “Dey wacis.” Does she really mean to imply that test performance isn’t a decent proxy for school quality? Or that opportunities at underfunded, underperforming schools are not limited? This is advanced, end-stage leftism. There really is no helping people like these.

Finding it rather odd that the article never mentioned where exactly her daughter attends school, I decided to do some research. According to her bio, Ms. Norman and her family live in Atlanta.


Fucking Atlanta.

The same Atlanta where public school officials were recently convicted of doctoring student exams to avoid the scrutiny that poor performance would bring the district under the terms of No Child Left Behind. Above all, Ms. Norman finds herself in a state that ranks 36/50 in terms of public school quality, a state that has one of the highest dropout rates, a state that has one of the weakest school districts in the nation and has some of the lowest per student spending in the nation. And somehow, none of this is relevant to Ms. Norman. So powerful is her compulsion to signal that she opts to send her child to one of the worst public schools in one of the worst school districts in the entire country. She considers it a “gift” that her children are able to “learn in an environment where their experiences are not the experiences of the majority of the kids in the room.” The gift of a shitty education. I’m certain her children will thank her later for such a munificent bestowal.

She is the Enlightened One, who can see past the poor test scores, past the behavioral issues, past the low school quality and the semi-retarded student body to see the hearts of gold beating within every little vibrant chest. That her white neighbors cannot do the same is simply a mark of their lack of refinement:

They want to go to the Christmas pageant and not have their white sensibilities violated because the other parents are too loud and boisterous and it makes them uncomfortable for no good reason. They don’t want their child to ask them why Quintavious’s (sic) [ed.:I am not shitting] sister says she doesn’t like white people.

How dare they resist diversity?! How dare they shield their middle class children from the undeserved hatred of the underclass? How dare they demand to enjoy their children’s Christmas pageant in polite silence rather than in a loud, zoolike atmosphere?

We must all heed the siren song of diversity and destroy our lives upon its jagged shores. 

I’d be fine with her stupidity, if hers weren’t the only life that stood to be destroyed as a result.

Self-hatred is a helluva drug.



  1. This mental illness is probably the status / prestige processing part of the brain going awry, it is not 100% sure how. But virtue signalling is clearly related to prestige-gathering. Potential hypothesis: it is really about getting actual status: although my view is a bit different, as it is clear that for example in your example this woman is not going to get any sort of status or power this way and that describes the VAST majority of Lefties, only a very small percentage of them will get any sort of real status or power from this. My own theory would be that it is all about virtual, imagined, subjective prestige, it is more about feeling high status than actually being, through some sort of a narcissism or solipsism or similar kind of problem. I wrote this hunch here: also related:

    I mean, to use this example, I as a reactionary fully admit that I am also interested in getting status and prestige. But I want the real thing. For example, I am fairly greedy in salary negotiations, money is one very reliable way to get real status. Or as far as the education of my child goes, it is all about getting her into good schools, having good grades, winning the spelling bee or maybe a singing competition or whatever, so the kind of things that actually gives you bragging rights to other parents, the kind of things that truly make a father proud, the kind of things that actually generates success in later life and 30 years later I can brag “that famous fashion designer? my daughter” I mean this is the real kind of status and prestige, this is something solid. Virtue-signalling isn’t, I think it is just felt, subjective, narcissistic status.

    Perhaps, due to egalitarian values, they are afraid to pursue real status, like wealth, and thus turn into this entirely subjective, drug-like thing which I dubbed “status wireheading”.

    Perhaps highly relevant, or not, but fascinating: check how much of this stuff seems familiar

    Liked by 1 person


    1. What struck me about this woman’s article was really how brain damaged she sounded. Think about it: not only did her ghetto public school signalling gambit fail (all the other white parents in the neighborhood just seem to pity her in her stupidity), but she will also not derive any secondary status points as it relates to having successful & accomplished children because they will just end up being traumatized and maleducated. She is actively engaging in behavior that will reduce to virtually zero her chances of ever having status at any time. This is truly bizarre behavior, to debase one’s status in order to assert that one is actually of a higher status than people who don’t do the same.

      “Imagine that instead of that someone just gave you a bag of gold so that you can buy yourself property, nice clothes, education for your kids and all the other purchasable kinds of status. That would be somehow more solid and real?”

      If the woman who wrote this article was actually invested in solving the problems that she observed, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend her time pursuing power and status? Wouldn’t it make sense to procure for her children the best possible education so that they could eventually assist in solving these problems? This is the one thing that has always annoyed me about leftists: they like to engage in undertakings that a. have no impact on the status quo or b. entrench the status quo & then turn around to complain that nothing is getting better.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s