The Deference Trap

You have to check this out first for context:

Laura Ingraham TORCHES Krauthammer After He Attacks Trump’s Condemnation of Alt-Left Violence

I like Krauthammer. I think he’s a thoughtful, intelligent guy. But like anyone else, there are times I’m gonna disagree with him despite that. And that’s ok. Laura’s right here. I understand the reflex to drop all context and make this whole thing about racism, because racism is that evil. And of COURSE if the only issue here is racism vs. anti-racism, of course there’d be nothing else to say.

But it’s not the whole story. Saying it’s not the whole story does not mean you condone racism. But the left does set this trap in which if you do not come out and agree with them 100% on everything they say, then you must be for the racists. And it’s worse than that — if they still don’t like you (and they won’t, there is nothing you can do or say that will placate them for more than 10 seconds, and even that is a ruse) that will redeem you in their eyes.

It is noble of course not to criticize another’s “family” right after it has suffered a tragedy. It is part of what makes us civilized, and Krauthammer is nothing if not civilized. On the other hand, the left constantly exploits our manners to move us ever further to the left, and they do need to be called out on it. This whole event, once you research what’s been going on with this event from a few months ago to the event itself is particularly egregious on the part of most of the left wing elements involved.

Hans Fiene in The Federalist nailed it the other day with the Charlie Brown-Football analogy.

Fisking JuliasGoat

I saw this post come across my facebook feed touting some SJW’s twitter screed.

I couldn’t take it.  I don’t ram cars into crowds of people.  But I have a pen.  And I’m not afraid to use it. 🙂

Listen up. Someone with the Twitter handle @JuliusGoat just dropped one of the best Twitter threads in history, about the white supremacist/Nazi march in Charlottesville

I’ve compiled all of it here for your reading pleasure and education:

Well no, JuilasGoat fan, not exactly.

While very (very!) few people have anything but disgust for white supremists and Nazis, this tirade is really just another re-hashing of the litany of leftist screeds against America and American Culture.  Which, by the way, has no color.  “White culture” is a term leftists came up with to delegitimize western culture.  This is the backdrop against which these damaged people, these Alt-Righter white supremists  are taking the stage.  They are reacting poorly, but directly, to the perpetual 8-track tape looping of this kind of screed of half-truths disguised as facts for the last 40, 50 years.

Since this screed is the same screed directed at America in general, I can only see it as trying to identify anyone who values American Culture as one of these sick punks that could only gather, what, 150-200 people, to some stupid rally that everyone should have ignored in the first place.  These people feed on hate, and counter-protests and news coverage feeds that hate.  They are otherwise universally rejected.

If you want to go back in history to find out where “they” (whom this guy conflates with “we”) … came from, a lot of them were people from Europe basically driven out because of their religous beliefs.  We outlawed that sort of thing here.  We outlawed burning churches and hanging innocent people from trees, too.  Oh, sure, some people still did it, as some people still murder and steal.  But it wasn’t because we “allow” it. We don’t “allow” murder and yet it still happens.  Some people are evil in any population.

Imagine if these people ever faced actual oppression.

Nobody is trying to legislate away their right to marry. Nobody is trying to make them buy insurance to pay for ‘male health care.’ 

Neither were “they”. Somebody *was* trying to legislate away The People’s right to define what they recognize as marriage and not have that definition forced upon them from the top. The proper way to do this would be through discussion and working it out in the culture — and eventually legislation. The legislation kept failing to pass, so they had the courts make the rule by fiat based on a Constitutional amendment that addressed slavery and racism, and whose authors would laugh at the idea that they meant what the courts interpreted today.  Most people are willing to live and let live.  The people who got this ruling do not, and they, in fact, are using it to oppress people who have religious objections to lending their businesses to events they feel it would be wrong for them to lend them to.  And now the same people want us to learn 87 different gender pronouns or be fired.

And people, for what it’s worth — men included, are being forced to pay for “female health care”.

The law never:

Enslaved their great-grandparents
 Robbed their grandparents
 Imprisoned their parents
 Shot them when unarmed

All tragedies when they happened. While it is true that some people’s great grandparents were enslaved and this enslavement was protected by law, the fact of the matter is that very few of our great grandparents owned slaves, many of them were vehemently against it, and that the founders founded this country in the midst of slavery with ideals that demanded its abolition.  A lot of our great grandparents put their lives on the line (and often lost them) to finally rid this country of this sick practice during a period where it was also ending in other (Western) nations.  Of course this practice does still exist in the world today.  Just not in the West.

To have blame laid upon you that you had nothing to do with solely on account of your skin color is racism.  It’s practically the definition of racism.  If you’re really against racism, you should be against all racism.  If not, you’re a racist.

There is no massive effort at the state and local level to disenfranchise them of the vote.

There is no massive effort at any level to disenfranchise anybody of the vote.  This is an invention of the left. Although Democrats’ history of doing just that in the south means they are familiar with how to do it. This probably makes them feel guilty, so they project that guilt on their opponents today. So they strive to make and keep voter fraud easy and undetectable, and accuse anyone who objects of disenfranchising minorities.

There is no history of centuries of bad science devoted to ‘proving’ their intellectual inferiority.

Bad science which virtually nobody buys today, and which was rebuffed by other scientists even while it was going on.

There is no travel ban on them because of their religion. There is no danger for them when they carry dangerous weaponry publicly.

There is no travel ban on people because of their religion.  There is a travel ban for non-Americans coming into the country from a few, but hardly all, and not the largest, middle-eastern countries because they don’t have strong enough governments to support any kind of meaningful vetting process.  There is certainly a strong correlation between these tumultuous countries and their primary religion, but that’s not our fault.  There are 50 Muslim majority countries.  The travel ban applies to 7.  And nobody who is an American Muslim is inhibited by America from travelling anywhere any other American is inhibited to traveling to.  If it is a “Muslim Ban” it is a piss poor excuse for one.

There should be no danger for anyone to carry a dangerous weapon publicly.  There probably is more danger for a colored person doing this than a white person.  This stems from a cultural correlation which could be overcome in a generation or so by assimilation into the mainstream culture rather than the constantly encouraged posturing against it.

Their churches were never burned. Their lawns never decorated with burning crosses. Their ancestors never hung from trees.

You might be surprised to learn that the KKK hated more than black people. When I was a little kid, I lived in terror of the KKK.  I was told they wanted to tar and feather me.  The thought of having burning hot tar applied to me because someone hated my religion … when you’re 8, that’s pretty terrifying.

But we drove the Democrats who did all of this out of office long ago, and would shame and throw anyone who did in jail today, probably wishing we could legally do worse.

Their mothers aren’t being torn away by ICE troopers and sent away forever. They won’t be forced to leave the only country they ever knew.

That’s on the mothers who broke immigration law getting here in the first place and a risk they took coming here improperly. It is sad.  But it is also preventable.  Don’t break the law, and law enforcement won’t come take you away.  Or your kids.

The president has not set up a hotline to report crime committed at their hands.

There are crime hotlines all over the country and have been for a long time. And none of them say “only call if the guy isn’t white”.

They are chanting ‘we will not be replaced.’

Replaced as … what?

Well, you know, these particular people are not particularly deep and I have no room for their ilk.  But … let me ask you….

  • Does a country have a right to decide who they allow to become “one of them”?
    Is it a cultural thing?
  • Does, say, Peru have a right to exclude people who want to become Peruvian?  Why?
  • Has the United States historically had its own culture?
  • Has the United States allowed people from all countries, cultures, races, and creeds to immigrate?
  • What were the implied conditions of that immigration? (hint: read the citizenship pledge).
  • Would Peru have the right to disallow Americans from immigrating to Peru?

The deal is, a culture in a country has a right to self-preservation and self-determination.  When we bring people here from wildly different cultures and do not expect integration into our famous “melting pot” and instead remain more like a salad bowl, we do not have a cohesive culture and in turn become a nation in name only.  It turns out multiculturalism is a lie.  It does not work.  It cannot work.  But promoting the idea as a central goal is a very good way to destroy a culture.  And none of this has a thing to do with race.

I’ll tell you.

Replaced as the only voice in public discussions. Replaced as the only bodies in the public arena. Replaced as the only life that matters.

THIS is ‘white people’ oppression: We used to be the only voice. Now we hold the only microphone.

This “us” and “them” stuff is what divides us. America has been integrating since its inception because of her values, and it is one of the few countries that has had to do this on any kind of scale. Posts like this only serve to keep us divided.  You are a big part of the problem.

THIS is ‘oppression’ of white Christians in this country. Christmas used to be the only holiday acknowledged, now it’s not.

Not even remotely true.  Plus … it’s not only white people who are Christian or who celebrate Christmas.  This obsession over race you have.  It’s not healthy.

Americans have historically adopted holidays and customs from the cultures of immigrants who have assimilated.

I would so love to see these people get all the oppression they insist they receive, just for a year. Just to see.

You’re that hateful, eh?  Besides, if what passes for oppression on the left actually were actually applied to “white Christians”, you would have to admit that it’s pretty rampant.  Most of the stuff brought up in this screed was stamped out by … wait for it … “white Christians” … a long time ago.

Give them a world where you ACTUALLY can’t say Christmas. A world where the name “Geoff” on a resume puts it in the trash.

You mean, like, say, in a lot of Middle Eastern countries?  And we … we are headed in that direction.

Give them a world where they suddenly get a 20% pay cut, and then 70 women every day tell them to smile more.

Ah, the old, thoroughly debunkedWomen make 78% of what men make for the same work.”  It’s not true.  Not even close.

Give them a world where their polo shirt makes people nervous, so they’re kicked off the flight from Pittsburgh to Indianapolis.

How about a world where people assimilate into the culture they adopt or are born into, kind of like the rest of the planet, rather than be encouraged not to and then harbor resentment for not being accepted by the culture they allegedly voluntarily immigrated into?

Give them a world where they inherited nothing but a very real understanding of what oppression really is.

Probably because this is all they’ve been taught by their leftist “betters”, so that they will look to them as children look to parents for protection rather than to take their lives into their own hands and make what they can out of them — the only real path to self-respect and honest respect from others.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day … and eventually becomes your slave.  Teach him to fish, and he becomes his own man.

Give them a world where if they pulled up on a campus with torches lit and started throwing hands, the cops would punch their eyes out.”

I think we’re misrepresinting what happened in Charlottesville here – which can be excused a little because the media has only given us some of the facts.
according to the cops, there were plenty of people “throwing hands” on both sides, and judging from past Antifa rallies, I’d lay bets it wasn’t even the idiot white supremists who threw the first punches (the linked video shows this). Cops don’t typically do anything until the flaming bottles and bricks start flying.  Or somebody pulls a gun.  Or somebody tries to pull one of the cops’ guns on them.

Gender and the co-opting of language

You know, I was sitting thinking about the 87 “gender” thing, and the “I F*cking Love Science™” crowd.

It hit me that once again, a word is being co-opted by the sophists.  A word that means one thing, and they pretend it means another — simultaneously coasting on the actual meaning … social reputation … of the word and denying that very meaning.

You know, I could grant them the word “sexuality”.  Maybe there are eleventy jillion “sexualities”.  The vast majority of them a result of nurture (or lack thereof) rather than nature.

But there are only two genders, scientifically, in nature.  Oh, sure, sometimes nature screws up and produces a person here or there who has some physical attributes of both genders.  And that’s certainly no reflection on those people any more than being born deaf or blind or with three arms is.  It is not “normal”.  It is what it is.  A good term would be “neither, but we’ll try to fit you in as best we can.”

But hijacking the word “gender” (which is, in fact, a scientific term) to essentially mean “sexual preference(s)” or “self-identification” is intentionally dishonest.  Pretending you’re still talking about science while using this word is a special kind of stupid dishonesty.

The progressives did the same thing with “liberal”, and myriad other words.

We shouldn’t let them get away with it.  Causes all sorts of problems.

The Genie

This needs to be preserved. Because it’s just too brilliant.  The cartoon, not my piddly words.

I brought it up again in an argument over illegal immigrants.  And watching people argue endlessly over the taxes they do or don’t pay.  Kind of like Charlie Gard.  It wasn’t a medical issue.  It was a moral one.

Similarly, here, this is not an economic issue. You either do or you don’t believe that a nation has the right to determine who joins it and who can enter it and under what conditions.

If you don’t, you don’t really believe in nations and you should just be honest and say so in our open conversation.

If you do, then follow this nation’s rules, including its rules about how it makes rules about such things. If you believe in rules and the natural rights they’re based on, how about we follow them?

If not…

Genie No Rules

Today’s SJW is Tomorrow’s Obergruppenfuhrer

Back in the 19th century, Marxism billed itself as science.  That was its appeal — 19th century science, especially physics and Darwinian biology, was destroying the old certainties.  You even had guys like Ernst Mach — a heavyweight scientist, for whom the speed of sound is named — arguing that ideas themselves evolve organically, much like organisms do.  The old world was dead; the old certainties were gone; what could be over the horizon?  Karl Marx pretended to know, with scientific certainty (yes, even back then they “fucking loved science”).

In a world where every day brought news of another of life’s certainties being overthrown by some egghead in a lab, Marxists’ dogmatic certainty kept them grounded.  That’s why so many confused young people were Marxists.  As Orwell observed back in the 1930s,

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

Marx said there is nothing but stuff in the world.  Material possessions.  Marx said that the old certainties were all lies, designed to keep The People from demanding more stuff.  Rejigger life’s material arrangements, he said, and we shall have social Utopia, just as the fruit-juice drinkers etc. shall, by rejiggering their biochemical arrangements, have physical utopia.

Then a funny thing happened: World War II.  We won, and all of a sudden an unimaginable level of material prosperity was available to everyone.  Nobody has involuntarily gone to bed hungry in America since about 1957, and it was soon obvious that Orwell’s Socialist dream of the 1930s was the Capitalist reality of the 1960s — those Wigan Pier miners all had clothes, shoes, three hots and a cot, and the National ‘Ealf….

…. and they still weren’t happy, any more than the Baby Boomers were, though warm and safe and full and secure on their local college campus.  But instead of concluding from all this that man does not live on bread (and socialized “healthcare”) alone — because that would entail that their parents had been right all along — they concluded that Racism was the cause of all their badfeelz.  How can you enjoy yourself, even with free love and righteous bud, while poor Negroes aren’t voting in Mississippi?  So they engineered the Great Magic Party Switch of 1964, passed the Civil Rights Act, and a funny thing happened: They still weren’t happy.  Must be Vietnam.  So they ended that….

…..and they still weren’t happy, just as they weren’t happy with second-wave Feminism, New Age spirituality, gay rights, animal rights, fruit-juice drinking, nudism, sandal-wearing…

The problem with all these things is: There’s no certainty.  No end state.  At least in the old, horrible, racist-sexist-homophobic-whatever world of a century ago, you knew what you were, and had your place in the world.  Here’s Orwell again, on the “radicals” of the interwar years:

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that
Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years’ time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting.

We all know who those prim little men with white-collar jobs and cushy social positions are: The professors, the race hustlers and poverty pimps, the flunkies of the Big Government Uniparty, who preach the wonders of Diversity from behind the ramparts of the whitest, tightest gated community they can find.  Focus on the others, the youthful snob-Bolsheviks.  Do they sound familiar?

A Marxist student group at Swarthmore College disbanded itself earlier this year after realizing that its members were too rich and too white to be real commies.
According to screenshots confidentially provided to Campus Reform by an individual with access to the group’s private Facebook page, the demise of the Swarthmore Anti-Capitalist Collective (SACC) came in the wake of a farewell letter from a member who had decided the group could never be an effective proponent of “unproblematized anticapitalist politics” due to its “history of abuse, racism, and even classism.”
“From my understanding SACC disbanded because they realized the makeup and tactics of their group was at odds with their espoused principles,” Swarthmore Conservative Society President Gilbert Guerra told Campus Reform. “Their main support base was middle-upper class white kids who enjoy jogging.” . . .
Arguing that “low-income people of color should never be an afterthought in a group whose politics supposedly focus on their liberation,” the author [of the letter disbanding the group] then went on to accuse SACC of having a “history of abuse, racism, and even classism that was never adequately addressed or recognized despite constantly being brought up as an issue.”

“A history of abuse, racism, and even classism” is just a list of buzzwords.  The badfeelz must be coming from somewhere, because it certainly can’t be us!  We’re the good ones.  We’re against racism, “classism” (whatever that can possibly mean in a country where our poor people drop dead from diabetes and obesity-induced coronaries), general whatever-ism.  Like Marlon Brando said in that old movie: What are you rebelling against?  What have you got?

This is the end-state of Postmodernism, which has been the reigning dogma on campus since the late 80s.  As Stephen R.C. Hicks points out, Postmodernism is the only way to hold on to faith in Socialism in the face of logic, math, history, experience, and common sense.  And that’s fine for professors and Uniparty flunkies — they have a place in the world.  But what about the kids?

They’re told for a fact that there’s no such thing as a fact.  They’re told that everything is relative, that anything and everything is a “social construction.”  In other words, Social Justice seems to provide an explanation for why teenagers feel so alienated from everyone and everything.  There’s Reality — that’s just how life is, circa ages 12-19 — and there’s Social Justice, and since Social Justice allows you to blame someone, anyone, for your problems, it’s no surprise they embrace it.  You’re unattractive to the opposite sex?  Must be patriarchy.  But wait, you’re not so sure you even want to be attractive to the opposite sex?  Oh, you’re asexual.  But wait, you’ve got a good friend who feels the same way.  Maybe you’re homosexual?  Or transsexual?  Whatever it is, Society made you that way.  It can’t be “just the way kids are,” because that’s biology, which is Racist.

The problem is, people crave certainty.  Kids — above all — want to know their place in the world.  All the behaviors we used to call “being a teenager” are about finding that place.  Parents, teachers, scoutmasters, Little League coaches, etc., exist primarily to provide safe venues for “rebellion.”  It’s a process of differential diagnosis — “I’m not this [nerd, skater, jock, etc.], so I must be that [scout, cheerleader, goth, whatever].”  Done right, the teenager learns the hard-but-not-permanently-damaging way that the old certainties exist for a reason, and that Mom and Dad were basically right about most things (adjusted for changing times).

Social Justice short circuits all that.  To be an SJW, you are required to believe, simultaneously, with fanatical zeal, that

  • Everyone is exactly what xzhey claim xzhey are, immutably, forever; and
  • That can change without warning, in an instant, because everything is a “social construction.”

Is it any wonder they’re so screwed up?

Soon enough the snob-Bolsheviks like the ex-members of Swarthmore’s Commie Cosplay Club are going to cotton to the fact that Social Justice is a dead end.  What seemed so certain in high school (or even junior high) is revealed in college to be just one more pose, one more deception, one more mask for the ideopathic “injustice” that must be the cause of all your problems.  There is certainty in the Dark Side….

…which is why the Dark Side will win.  Today’s SJW is tomorrow’s obergruppenfuhrer.

 

Alt-Retards

Pas d’ennemis a droit, but Jesus, guys, you aren’t doing yourselves any favors with baloney like this.  There are more flagrant lies about the Confederacy in an article defending the Confederacy from flagrant lies.  Let’s count ’em:

Yes, admittedly there was some damning rhetoric from some Confederate leaders supporting slavery in the 1860’s

If by “some” leaders you mean “pretty much ALL leaders,” then this isn’t a lie.  Otherwise, no.  Several ordinances of secession specifically cite slavery as a reason for leaving the Union.  The Confederate Constitution specifically prohibits abolition (Article I, section 9, 4: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”).  No serious historian would maintain that slavery was the only cause of the Civil War — nothing in life has only one cause, friends — but he would not deny that slavery was the proximate cause of the war, because it was, as every single American, North and South, acknowledged at the time.

95% of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves

The commonly accepted figure for slave ownership in the Old South was 25%.  Were slaveholders under-represented in the Confederate army, do you think?  From the definitive study of the Army of Northern Virginia:

Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.*

You’ll notice, I hope, that even if we restrict it to those soldiers who personally owned slaves, “slightly more than 1 in 10” is 10%, which is more than 5%.  Twice as big, actually.

compared to a negligible amount of black soldiers on both sides

Black soldiers made up about 10% of Union forces, which is hardly negligible.  It’s about the same proportion as draftees into the Union army, and no serious historian would argue that the North could’ve won the war without the draft.

here are some quotes from the battle flag’s top general, Robert E. Lee himself

Quotes damning slavery follow.  But like fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, Lee could make eloquent anti-slavery remarks while holding slaves himself.  Lots of them.  While Lee did free the slaves at Arlington in 1862, it was because he was required to by his father-in-law’s will, not any personal sentiment of his own (Lee was widely known as a tough taskmaster).

All the evidence clearly points out the Confederacy was peacefully following principles laid out by the founding fathers, the declaration of independence, and the 12 amendments of the U.S. constitution which were in place as of 1861. “Patriots” the Confederates may or may not have been. But “traitors” definitely not.

Absurd.  Taking up arms against your countrymen is, by definition, treason.

“The Confederates were Terrorists.”

This is supposed to be a lie?  Victims of Quantrill’s Raiders, John Hunt Morgan’s guerrillas, etc. would vehemently disagree.  Confederate irregulars, especially in the border states, were infamous for their brutality.  That the North too practiced the hard hand of war doesn’t let their enemies off the hook.  And let’s not forget the widespread terrorism of the ex-Confederates in the original Klan.

It is undeniable and unfortunate that the Confederate government (not Lee’s army) fought for the maintenance of slavery as one of it’s core objectives

Again, absurd.  A national army fights, by definition, for the core objectives of its nation — one of which was, as we’ve seen, the maintenance of slavery.  This is like claiming Patton’s 5th Armored fought for the US government, but not for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

So that’s, what, five flagrant lies about the Confederacy in an article titled “Four Flagrant Lies about the American Confederacy”?  The retard is strong in this one.  Look, if you want to maintain that the CSA got a bad rap, and that Lincoln was America’s worst tyrant, you’ll get no argument from me.  But before you start, please get your basic facts straight.

 

 

*Yes yes, quoted in The Atlantic, one of the biggest piece-of-shit liberal publications around, but the quote is accurate, and the study’s author is one of the biggest names in Civil War military history.

 

On Teenagerhood

Stacy McCain has another wonderful takedown of a shrill, fat feminist (her own words.  “Fat,” I mean — “shrill” is redundant, but some half-remembered rule of composition made me put it in there.  By the way, did you know that the collective noun for a group of liberals is “shriek”?  A murder of crows, a shriek of liberals.  But I digress).  Anyway, he’s said it all about her, much better than I can.  I just want to add a tangential comment:

This is what happens when you eliminate adolescence.

Mrzx. Toal writes

It’s hard because when you grow up fat, you grow up believing that you’re not ever going to be attractive to anyone. You don’t even do this on purpose — the world does it for you. For me, they did it through fat jokes on Friends, fat jokes on Will & Grace, fat jokes on every single sitcom, ever, headlines on my mother’s Cosmo and Self telling me (I wasn’t supposed to be looking at them, but whatever) both that my sexuality only mattered as long as it was relevant to men and that being fat automatically made my sexuality irrelevant to men, “No Fat Chicks” bumper stickers, bullying in school, and rampant self-hatred and body-shaming in my family. I don’t think I ever had any agency in deciding whether or not I thought I was attractive until college. I just sort of knew, because the world knew, that I wasn’t. I was fat. How could I be?

Kiddo, I hate to break it to you, but this is normal.  Yes, when you’re 15, being sexually attractive to the opposite sex pretty much is the only thing that matters, because — pay attention, this is important — you lack the maturity, the understanding, the very conceptual toolkit to evaluate people any other way.

I was 15 long ago and far away, but I’m pretty sure that if you’d asked me back then where I would be now, in middle age, I’d say something like “getting ready to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, but needing to put on the ugly jacket in space, because I’d be deep into my second career as an astronaut.”  That’s normal, too, as are the ever-shifting identities — each of them The REAL You — you put on and off as easily as their characteristic uniforms.  Again, this was back in the Jurassic, but I’m pretty sure I was at least six different things my sophomore year: A jock, a nerd, a preppie, a burnout, a goth, and a skater.  I’m probably forgetting a few.

It’s only modern times where we think everyone must have everything figured out by the time xhzhe hits 14.  It’s awful, because it eliminates the possibility of change.  As McCain points out, all this gal needed to do was one simple exercise: The pushaway.  As in, push your ass away from the dinner table before taking seconds.  But that would entail personal responsibility, and when you’ve been made what you are by 14 — and nothing can ever change, not ever, until Society itself changes — what’s the point?

On the Trannie Ban in the Military

I really don’t see what Liberals are so worked up about.  Trump consulted with all the Experts, and they have a Consensus.  Sure, sure, you might find a rogue here or there who questions the data, but it’s clear that the Science is Settled(TM).

Are the Experts somehow wrong?  How can that be?  Or are you saying we should go against the Consensus?

And here I thought y’all fucking loved science.

The Five-Hour B.A.

Here’s a fun game to play if you’re bored and suicidal.  In case you don’t want to wade through that, Vox Day has randomized all the phrases in an award-winning work of modern “literature.” As they all make equal sense — zero — you’re invited to guess as to which one made it to the published page.

You can do the same thing with academic “literature,” too.  Jonah Goldberg used to quote PoMos like Judith Butler a lot:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Here, too, feel free to randomize the phrases and recombine them, Dada-style.*  It makes just as much sense, I promise.  As Goldberg points out at length, communication has nothing to do with this; all those big words are supposed to beat you down, so that you meekly go along with the author’s political platform (“vote Hillary.”  Yes, even back then).

The reason professors do this kind of thing is, of course, capitalism — you’ll never make tenure if you don’t publish, and since Shakespeare ain’t writing no more sonnets, the only way to say something new is to expand the definition of “literature” (or whatever) past the point of meaninglessness.  This is true of all the Humanities save History** — it has all been said before, no later than the 19th century in most cases and always far, far better.  In fact, if you want the equivalent education to a modern BA, you can do it in about five hours.  Ready?

Read Nietzsche — pretty much anything will do, but I recommend Beyond Good and Evil — and James Joyce (again, pretty much anything will do.  If you want to slog through Ulysses or, God save us, Finnegan’s Wake, be my guest, but A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man will get you there, and it’s actually sorta comprehensible).  Modern academics, you see, believe in only two things: Words and Power.  Whether Words create Power, or vice versa, determines what flavor of egghead you are, but the basic idea is the same.  They got this from Derrida, who got it from Foucault, who got it from Nietzsche, who wrote crystal-clear prose.  To make themselves sound all deep and original, they had to take ol’ Fred’s basic insight and gussy it up past the point of incomprehensibility….

….which works, because if there is nothing but Words and Power, then it follows that only the form of the Words matter.  Which is literary Modernism, which is Joyce.

Give it a whirl.  Submit your final exams in the comments.

 

*Back when that was new and edgy, Dadaist “writers” actually did that — they wrote a story, then cut the individual sentences out of the page, scrambled them, and pasted them onto a new page.  Because “art is dead” or something.

** And only there because new evidence can always come to light.

The Sad Plight of the Unmoved Mover

St. Thomas Aquinas famously had five proofs for the existence of God.  Of these, by far the best known is the “argument from motion,” otherwise known as the “Unmoved Mover.”  It’s pretty basic:  All effects have a cause.  Motion is a simple, commonplace effect, and everyone knows that an object in motion must have been put in motion by another (think of pool balls scattering off a break).  But that leads to an infinite regress — X was moved by X1, which was moved by X2, which was moved by X3, ad infinitum… unless there is something that set them all in motion, that is not itself in motion.  This is the Unmoved Mover, aka God.

The Unmoved Mover has some interesting consequences.  For instance, Thomas deduces (I forget just how) that the Unmoved Mover wasn’t an isolated event, like the Big Bang, but is in fact sustaining us even now.  We, the universe, and everything else would wink out of existence should God stop willing it.  Note, not “God can destroy the universe at any time,” but “the universe would cease to exist if ‘making the world exist’ slipped His mind, even for a split second.”

This means that our individual wills are really just instances of God’s Will, which, if you think about it, accounts for all our little individual motions, too.  The arm is moved by muscles; the muscles are moved by tendons; the tendons are moved by nerves; the nerves are moved by electrical impulses; the electrical impulses are moved by chemical reactions; the reactions are moved by the electron shells of atoms; the electrons are moved by… well, I dunno, I didn’t get that far in high school chemistry, but no matter how far back down the chain of causation you go, the fact remains that something — you — willed your arm to extend.  You — your soul — is your body’s unmoved mover, and it is sustained in being by the first Unmoved Mover.

Simple, right?  Probem is, it can’t be correct.  If it were, then some ignorant medieval churchman, who spent his off hours chanting ooga-boogas to scare away witches, has answered every important ontological question in the history of philosophy.  And to be fair, the Scholastics (Thomas’s intellectual heirs) did get fairly ridiculous about what you can prove with syllogisms.  When Early Modern critics of Scholasticism like Hobbes asked “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,” they were joking, but they weren’t kidding; Scholastics got up to stuff like that.*

So the Unmoved Mover hypothesis can’t be right.  Which, unfortunately, dooms us to materialism, which, a few world wars later, becomes the kind of shit-flinging nihilism that fucking loves science.  How did the Big Bang happen?  Dunno, it just did, and how dare you question it, God-botherer.  Why can’t we ever see the source of nerve impulses in our fMRIs?  Shut up, bigot, and wait for the technology to get better.

Which leads to SJWism.  With no Unmoved Mover, there’s nothing says the universe must be the way it is.  Hell, how are we to know that it is the way it is, or at least appears to be?  David Hume argued (again, I forget how) that there’s no necessary relationship between cause and effect; they just tend to correlate.  From there, Karl Popper (ditto) said there’s no way to “prove” anything in science, because only propositions that are “falsifiable” are scientific, and science doesn’t work like that.  No amount of white swans, say, will prove the statement “all swans are white;” it can only be disproved by finding a black swan.  So there’s no proof that witches don’t exist, that unicorns aren’t real, that voodoo doesn’t work, or all the other Feyerabendian nonsense that passes for “philosophy of science” nowadays.  And from there, I hope it’s easy to see that it’s child’s play to claim there are 57 (or whatever) genders, that there’s no such thing as race, that two men can be married, et cetera ad nauseam.

Pity the poor Unmoved Mover, eh?  All he was trying to do was make the world comprehensible for the beings He loved, hoping they’d love Him back… and knowing they wouldn’t.  What a chump.  He should’ve taken that one gender studies class; that’d set Him straight!

 

 

*Note that Thomism is updated Aristotelianism, which itself was an attempt to deal with this kind of thing.  Parmenides, for instance, held that, since something cannot be created out of nothing, there is no “nothing” — no “void” for things to move into.  And since two things can’t occupy the same space simultaneously, there is no motion.  Similarly, Zeno** held that, if you give a tortoise a one foot head start in a race against Achilles, the turtle will always win.  To overtake the tortoise, Achilles has to close the gap between them.  So he cuts the gap in half with his first step…. his second step cuts the new gap in half, the third step cuts that gap in half, ad infinitum, and the turtle ambles across the finish line while Achilles is still bridging almost infinitely small gaps.  The syllogisms work, but the conclusions are insane; hence Aristotle’s Four Causes and all that.

**of Elea, not Zeno the founder of Stoicism.