Monthly Archives: December 2016

On Becoming a Catholic

For me, it was humility that did it…. As you’ve probably noticed, humility isn’t one of my virtues.  I struggle with it every day, along with doubt, acedia, and all the rest of the Seven Deadlies.*  And who knows?  Maybe my “conversion experience,” wasn’t.  It’s not like Jesus appeared in a vision and pimp-slapped me — such as it was, it was so subtle that every day I wonder if it really happened.  So maybe I’m wrong.  But on the off-chance it will help anyone else, here’s how it worked for me:

As he does with all nerdy kids, the Devil placed the One Ring of Sophomoric Insight on my finger sometime in my teenage years: “everything is a social construction!”  Thus I became Smart, and so I became a Liberal.  And so, like all Liberals, I “won” every “argument” through snark, dismissiveness, condescension, and the magic power of pretty words.  And like all Liberals, I thought my mighty word-power would get me laid… and it did.  Not nearly as much as I wanted, of course, but it doesn’t take much to keep nerdy kids preoccupied, and so I remained a Liberal throughout my college years.

And yet, even back then, doubts crept in.  Liberals are always the Smartest guys in any room.  Have you noticed?  But I wasn’t, damn it, not always.  Not even most of the time, because try as I might — and trust me, I tried a lot — no amount of virtue-signaling would get me past Calc I.  Yes yes, math is a social construction, and what do you know about the plight of the  ____ in _____, Algebra Boy? …..

…. but damn it, math isn’t a social construction, and I don’t really know anything about the plight of the ____ in _____, either.  In fact, it seems to me that what you might call Third World Personality Disorder is the real culprit in ____, and no amount of teach-ins or peace marches are going to cure that.  In fact, the only guys doing any good at all in ____ have to be escorted by the US Marines, who, come to think of it…..

Heresy!!!  Yet the doubts remained.  Got worse, actually, when I got out of college.  These were the Internet Bubble years, so finding a job was no problem, but the job I found sure was.  You see, back then, the only idiots who majored in Humanities like I did also had parents who could absorb the cost of their dumbass kids majoring in Humanities — thus the year “backpacking” around Europe to “find yourself” that is the cliched best time ever of every dipshit with a BA, c. 1980-1998.  But my folks couldn’t — and I’d have found my Dad’s foot so far up my ass there’d’ve been tread marks on my uvula had I dared suggest it — so I took the first job I interviewed for, which happened to be in a financial services firm….

…where I ran into all those dumbass meathead frat bros I despised in college.  I knew I was so much smarter and better than them.  More attuned, more aware, more enlightened.  Which sucked, because it turned out that a lot of those dumbass meathead frat bros were actually pretty smart, and pretty good guys too.  So while I was out there virtue signalling at the protest du jour, trying to get laid with my exquisite PC sensitivity, these guys were actually getting laid, and having a much better time than I was.  And for all I was such a superior person (minus the girlfriend, of course), we all ended up in the same place, doing the same job… at which quite a few of them were as good as, and many were better than, me.  Doubts….

….and then grad school, where I immersed myself in intellectual culture.  Both kinds:  The real stuff, and what passes for it in the ivory tower.  Try as I might, I couldn’t see how the whole grab bag of academic nonsense didn’t boil down to question-begging.  And try as I might, I couldn’t find holes in the canonical Western tradition.  In fact, all the stuff that I’d patted myself on the back for thinking up back in college had been thought before, and much better, by guys like Friedrich Nietzsche, who raised — and casually dismissed in a few sentences — sophisticated objections to it that I’d never even dreamed of.  And he had nothing on guys like Aquinas….

….whose arguments for the existence and nature of God are absolutely irrefutable.  The universe can’t be any other way than the way Aquinas says it is, and because it can’t, there must absolutely be a God, and he’s very like the Christian god…..

….which brings us up to now.  The rest is faith.  You can’t logically prove that the Christian god is the one true god (though you can easily prove that there can only be one god), or that Jesus Christ is His Son.  You’re on your own for that**.  But let me tell you at least one thing that happens emotionally when you give that thought a try (notice I didn’t say “embrace;” I said “give it a try”):

You feel completely humbled… and then you feel blissful at your humility.  The reason Materialism, i.e. the basis of all modern Liberal attitudes, doesn’t satisfy is because you feel utterly alone and adrift in the world.  All this — waving your arms at the entire universe — and there’s just you, a tiny speck on a tiny speck adrift in incomprehensible vastness.  And you get a few trips around one of quadrillions of other identical suns, and then you’re gone, forever, into nothingness.  But if you try the thought that maybe Jesus was right, and this world — all of it, all quadrillions of identical suns, all that vast unknowable universe — was created just for you… you’re overwhelmed.  It’s one hell of a rush…

….. and then comes the HARD part, but we’ll leave that for another time.  Merry Christmas, y’all.



*My (probably heretical) theory is that we all get the same number of Deadly Sin hit points, but unequal distribution.  So, I don’t have much in the way of Envy, but I got triple the Sloth and Gluttony.

**Not really; you get that because He wants you to have it.  But since we’re speaking as materialists here….

Loading Likes...

Jeez They’re Dumb

Remind me how we keep losing to these people?

I wasn’t going to go see Rogue One: An SJWars Story anyway, but now I’m really not going to go see it.  For all you butt-hurt liberals comparing yourselves to the Rebel Alliance, here’s a clue:

The Rebel Alliance sucks.

Seriously.  They’re a bunch of incompetent pussies who only succeed because their opponents are, unfathomably, even dumber and less competent (so if you want to argue that the GOP are Imperial Storm Troopers, ok, I’ll give you that).  They’re led by a princess who is somehow also a senator — typical chick, can’t make up her mind — whose only talent is getting her dumb ass captured.

that's not a complaint, mind you, just an observation

that’s not a complaint, mind you, just an observation

Their other leader, meanwhile — pro tip, guys, there’s a chain of command for a reason — is a whiny douchebag who, as revealed in the prequels, was such a loser little kid that he had to build himself a gay robot friend….. that he proceeded to hang out with for the entire run time of five other movies.  Oh, and who’s only a Jedi because his mom caught some kind of intergalactic STD.  Glad he didn’t take any penicillin before running away from his comrades in their darkest hour to go do swamp gymnastics with a fucking muppet.

And what’s up with giving your soldiers helmets that look like half a scrotum turned sideways?  No wonder they suck at fighting.

indexThe truth, of course, is that every red-blooded little boy, and most red-blooded little girls, in America wanted to be Darth Vader.  I know, I know, I’m old, but I played a lot of “Star Wars” as a kid, and the toughest task was getting anyone to play Luke.  And no, nobody really wanted to be Han Solo, either – that’s a teenager fantasy.  It was pretty much Darth Vader or Chewbacca, and I’m not saying our parents routinely had to come out and make us quit fighting and take turns being Vader and Chewie, but I’m not not saying it either.

Last point: Didja ever wonder why Rebels keep getting seduced to the Dark Side?  Meaningful choice of words there, wouldn’t you say?  Go dark, and you not only get 1,000 times cooler, you get laid.  Let’s review.  Here’s Princess Leia, space commanderette of the Intergalactic Model UN Club:

star_wars_trailer3Is that what they mean by “lean in?”

Meanwhile, here’s Leia under the influence of a bad, bad guy:

princess-leia-800-2Shall we go on?  Good Luke:

mark-hamill-luke-skywalker-star-wars-plot-holesversus bad, bad Daddy:

star-wars-darth-vader-sixth-scale-feature-1000763Umm, yeah.  I’m with him.

Search your feelings.  You know it to be true.

Loading Likes...

Racist Racists and the Great Magic Party Switch of 2016

The regular commenter gang over at House of Eratosthenes often had great fun with what we called the Great Magic Party Switch of 1964.  This, as every liberal knows, is when all the racists who were NOT in the Democratic Party — no siree, no way, nah ah, negative — left the party they weren’t part of and became Republicans, because the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act.

It’s wonderfully medieval, this Magic Party Switch.  It reminds me of the “chain consumption argument.”  If you accept that we must be resurrected in this body — and St. Paul apparently decrees it so — then what happens if you get eaten by a shark?  Or, God forbid, a school of sharks?  Mus the Lord really assemble all your pieces from the bellies of all those fish?  Or, worse, you die and are buried.  The worms eat you, birds eat the worms, cats eat the birds….You end up with theologians maintaining, in all apparent seriousness, that we neither digest or excrete (much), because thermodynamics-style, all the matter of this present body must be conserved.

So with Democrats and racism.  You see, Democrats can’t be racists.  And since, for liberals, history begins anew every time the sun rises, that means the Democrats were never racists (which also follows from the fact that Republicans are racist.  It’s a two-party system, so if the Democrats ever were racist, that means the Republicans weren’t racist.  Which is impossible).  Everything is what it is, what it was, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.  The casuistry gets gruesome fast — cf. here, where the Guardian informs us that if you “control for religion,” and geography, and (probably) the designated hitter and the fact that vests have no sleeves, you see that the Republicans are the real racists when it comes to voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Because of course they are.  Meanwhile, all the Democrats who voted against it, tried to filibuster it, etc., aren’t racists.  By definition, because Democrats can’t be racists.  Haven’t you been paying attention?

Of course, now’s the time some neckbeard charges in with his beachhead fact, pointing out the undeniable truth the the South used to vote Democrat, but now votes Republican.  Those folks have been willingly enstupidated by the Teachers’ Unions, but for those skimming this before breakfast, my contention isn’t “the polls are all lies; the South really votes Democrat.”  It’s “mono-causal explanations of big attitude shifts are retarded.”  We are routinely informed that Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” pulled all the racists out of the Democratic Party — that they weren’t ever part of! — with racism, and only racism, because racism.  Nothing else.

But you know what?  The fastest way to refudiate a liberal “argument” is simply by taking it seriously.  So, ok, all the racist never-were-Democrats left the Democratic Party — which they were never a part of! — to vote Republican starting in 1964.  Because racism.  But…. a whole bunch of Democrats also left the Democratic Party this year to vote Trump.  Which is also racism, of course, but… were they — union guys, white women, etc. — not really in the Democratic Party either, 1964-style?

Either way, I’m wondering just how many voters the Democratic Party could possibly have left.  You’ve got inner-city blacks, of course, and all their dead relatives, pets, and dead relatives’ dead pets, but still, that’s, what, a few million?

And then there’s the fact that Donald Trump didn’t win the popular vote, as approximately every liberal on the planet has been constantly reminding us since the wee hours of November 9, 2016.  How is that possible, given all the racism?  I mean, Trump won because racism, right?  Isn’t that the one and only explanation, same as in 1968?  If there’s been, in effect, a Second Great Magic Party Switch, where all the racists who somehow weren’t already Republicans now are, then shouldn’t he have won the popular vote by seventy two zillion votes?

And then there are all those Republicans who didn’t vote for Trump, with their cute little hashtags.  They’re still carrying around GOP voter registration cards.  Are they racists?  They must be, since they’re still Republicans, and all Republicans are racists, but they didn’t vote for the biggest racist of them all, who’s so racistly racist he’s literally Hitler.  How does that make any sense?  Can someone explain this to me, in itty bitty words?


Loading Likes...

Explaining Academia: Michel Foucault

The “Explaining Academia” series exists for two reasons: 1) to show you what a massive scam college is, and 2) as a supervillain origin story for Leftist chestnuts. Today’s nonsense about “toxic masculinity,” and trans-whateverism, and proclaiming oneself narwhalsexual and calling oneself “xyr,” for instance…. all this was being hashed out in gender studies courses a decade ago. So let’s take a trip in the wayback machine, to the late 1960s. Groovy, baby!

austinpowers_0Believe it or not, there once was a time when a thinker’s personal life had nothing to do with his ideas… but that time was not the Sixties, and Michel Foucault is one of the main reasons why.  Michel Foucault was a queer Frog philosopher who liked rough sex.  Had that not been the case, his infantile Nietzsche-lite act would never have seen the light of day.

Turns out that whole “rejecting bourgeois morality” thing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  Foucault, and the kind of people who read Foucault, weren’t satisfied with the free love they were getting in the Summer of Love (as good little Marxists, they’d rejected the capitalist axiom that things are worth what you pay for them).  And since nothing can ever be a liberal’s fault, they concluded that there’s something wrong with sexuality itself. 

So along comes Foucault, to tell us that sex, like morality, culture, and everything else, is nothing but power.  All human interactions are merely transactions, and since no two individuals will ever be equal*, all transactions are, at bottom,** exploitation.  There is no “sex,” not really, and there’s surely no “love” — there is only Domination, Submission, and Resistance.

Like every harebrained idea the ivory tower has farted out in the last half-century, Foucault’s “power / resistance” stuff is trivially true.  If you have something I want, you have “power” over me — you can set the terms of the exchange.  If I pay your price, I “submit.”  But if the price is too high, I will search for other ways to get it — I will “resist.”  Of course, all this talk of “price” and “exchange” makes the whole deal look a lot like capitalism…..

….because it IS capitalism, squeezed into gimp-suit jargon.  I was a bit too young for the singles’ bar scene, but this is exactly how the world’s Kate Milletts described dating back in the Disco Era: commodity exchange, and isn’t it just awful how men expect sex after shelling out a week’s paycheck on dinner and drinks?  That they got this notion from a guy who’d give Andrew Sullivan’s RawMuscleGlutes a vigorous spanking tells you everything you need to know about Second-Wave Feminism, but that’s irrelevant.  The point is that only a Cheeto-dusted basement dweller would read this stuff and think yes, this is a deep and meaningful way of describing human interaction.  Which is why it took academia by storm.

And once you start looking at the world this way, it gets harder and harder to stop.  Foucault didn’t; he went full retard, arguing that modern penitentiaries, like modern medical centers, trick us into participating in our own slavery.  We don’t draw-and-quarter people anymore, says Foucault, because early modern governments so arranged the “technologies of power” that we internalize the ruling elite’s expectations for us, making gaudy public torture unnecessary.***  Which is clever, I guess, until you start asking who is employing these “micro-physics of power;” who came up with the codes, and, most importantly, why?  This is the “Nietzsche-lite” of Foucault’s infantile Nietzsche-lite act.  Also the “infantile” part.  Ask any teenager: The reason your parents say they have all those rules is to make you a better person, but really it’s to make things easier on them, and really it’s just because they like torturing kids.  Which is why they’re literally Hitler.

The most interesting thing, in my view, is that once again we have the Left reducing the entire vast spectacle of human history to ONE thing… and then ignoring the obvious implications of that one thing.  Let’s say Foucault is right, and all that stuff we call “culture” — religion, the family, honor, patriotism, heterosexuality, whatever — really are just masks for raw power.  Ok, so…. we’re supposed to let “Progressives” shame us into doing what they want?  The proper response to a Progressive charge of “rayciss” is, according to Progressives’ own philosophy, “so?  Racism is a social construction.  You’re only accusing me of it to subordinate me.  I choose resistance. Pistols at dawn, motherfucker.”

If Foucault is right, then there’s no possible end to the Hobbesian war of all against all, because the social contract is just another “technology of power.”  And just as Nietzsche — raw power’s original apostle — was a half-blind syphilitic, so his ape was a power bottom who died of AIDS, and so his apes in academia are noodle-armed pajamaboys and trigglypuffs.

Do y’all seriously want to keep claiming that all is power, power, nothing but power?


*If you want to say that this is why Lefties are all-in on group rights — that many of them figure the only way they’ll get laid is to equalize the collective value between themselves and potential partners — go nuts.

**heh heh…”bottom.”  You really can’t avoid double entendres like this when talking about guys like Foucault, even if you tried… which is why I don’t bother trying.

***You don’t need to be an early modernist or a queer Frog philosopher who likes it rough to come up with a zillion better explanations for this fact.  Common sense works just fine.  Could it be, perhaps, that the reason there were so many capital crimes on the books in the pre-modern age was that law enforcement was pretty much nonexistent?  Half the people in a given country didn’t know their king’s name; do you think they spent much time memorizing the penal code?  If the duke actually caught a lawbreaker red-handed, he’d have every incentive to get medieval on him, pour encourager les autres.


Loading Likes...


I love it when Stacy McCain pimp-slaps the feminists. It always gets me thinking. In this case, I’m thinking: Who actually likes feminism?

Aside from a certain subspecies of drama queens and attention whores, I mean, i.e. those almost-cute-enough-to-get-by-on-their-looks-but-not-quite gals that Nightfly described so eloquently here. They’re neither attractive nor interesting enough to get noticed any other way (you can tell, because seriously you guys men are totally ogling them, like, all the time. Literally). But as you need to try very hard to not be at least kinda cute when you’re college age, that’s a thankfully small demographic. So… does anyone else actually like feminism?

Guys don’t, obviously. It’s been a while since I was in the dating market, but even back then this lunacy threatened to turn any interaction with a woman into a dick-measuring contest. She’s live-chatting your small talk to 3,000 of her closest Twitter followers, just in case you’re the kind of psycho stalker who would abduct a catch like her while meeting up in a public place at high noon.

But women don’t like it either, as evidenced by Trump’s winning the majority of white female voters. As women are much more socially attuned, and there’s a considerable social penalty for being even a “conservative,” let alone a Trump supporter, this is like Louis XIV’s courtiers bailing out on absolute monarchy. The only way they’d vote against The Woman from the Woman Party is if they’ve concluded that feminism is a sucker bet. Ask any “cougar.”

I’ll probably take some shit for this from any women among the Six Regular Readers, but I’m confident that if Trump really wants to found his own party, and make sure it never loses another election, he should immediately create his own version of the Bund Deutscher Mädel. Give women social sanction to be feminine again, and the rest takes care of itself — no more Pajamaboys, no more Bronies, no more whatevers calling xyrzelves “xyr.” Suicide rates would crater, birth rates would skyrocket, and two young folks will be able to make googly eyes at each other without needing three cameras and a lawyer present.

What’s not to love?

Loading Likes...


As mentioned in a previous SNUL, Vox Day et al seem to be going in for this “cliodynamics” stuff in a big way.  Which highlights one of the things that bugs me most about the “Alt-Right” — for a group supposedly steeped in history, they sure have a knack for ignoring inconvenient parts of it.  All this has been done before, many times.

The temptation to quantify the unquantifiable has been with us since Newton.  You know that old joke about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”  New-style “natural philosophers,” the precursors of what we’d call “scientists,” made that joke.  Yes, scholastic philosophers, like medievals in general, were addicted to lists and hierarchies… but quantity was strictly an Early Modern thing, and when they asked “how many?,” they were projecting.

The ancients were not ignorant of cause and effect, of course, but theirs was not a cause-and-effect world.  Witchcraft is an obvious, entertainingly weird example.  For all the zillion pages written on witchcraft, you hardly find any on what witches actually did to achieve their effects, and what little you do find is downright bizarre.  How the hell do, say, witch bottles work?  Or take the Malleus MaleficarumThe “evidence” is detailed, and the logic impeccable, but it makes no damn sense at all to modern brains.  We want the mechanism: Do X, and Y follows, because of rule Z.  That’s a historically conditioned response, and it’s only about 400 years old.

I’m no Early Modernist, but if you want to say that Isaac Newton almost singlehandedly launched the modern world, you’ll get no argument from me.  His laws of motion hit philosophy like an atom bomb.  Motion itself could be quantified.  Think about that!  Not the predictability of the planets turning in their crystalline spheres, but any motion anywhere — if you know the initial conditions, you can predict with pinpoint accuracy the trajectory of an arrow, or a soccer ball, or a moon rocket.  You can attach a number to nature’s fundamental forces, and with a little math you could literally predict the future…

… and so everyone started trying to.  Those interested in this kind of thing should check out Roy Porter’s Flesh in the Age of Reason, an entertaining romp through early modern biology.  He describes a whole new school of medicine, iatromathematics, that tried to cure diseases using Newton’s laws.  If something as chaotic as motion can be reduced to mathematics, perhaps everything can be!

Alas, it’s not so.  Hobbes tried to derive laws of political philosophy from geometry, and failed just as thoroughly as Karl Marx did in trying to derive laws of History from Hegelian dialectics.  I’m sure the “game theory” and whatnot of the cliometricians is impressive, but it suffers the same fundamental flaw as the Drake Equation or the prescriptions of the iatromathematicians: All its torturous math begins and ends with ass-pulled figures.  Ask any engineer why the chicken crossed the road: “First, assume a spherical chicken”…..

You can build some impressive stuff that way, because eventually engineers’ assumptions get translated into steel and concrete.  Did the assumption work?  Well, let’s drive that car across this bridge and see.  History don’t work that way, because it can’t.  Don’t believe me?  Ask everyone who claimed it was mathematically certain Hillary Clinton would be president.

Loading Likes...

SNUL 2: Electric Boogaloo

At David Thompson’s, the tale of a Millennial feminist whatever and her dumpster-diving adventures:

As a white, 22-year-old college graduate in a second-hand dress, I did not look like what we think of as “poor.” Of course, at that exact moment, I had, yes, a college degree and a coveted unpaid (because of course it was unpaid) internship at a public radio station. But I also had a minimum wage job to support myself, $17 in my bank account, $65,000 in debt to my name, and $800 in rent due in 24 days….I was extremely hungry, worried about my utilities being shut off, and 100% planning to hit up the dumpster at the nearby Starbucks… I had no functional stove in my tiny apartment because the gas it took to make it work was, at $10 per month, too expensive.

Thompson helpfully includes this freak’s LinkedIn profile, which out of morbid curiosity I clicked on. 500+ connections, it says she has. Admittedly I’m an old fogey and don’t understand how this “social media” nonsense works, but if I had 500+ connections — hell, if I knew 500+ people by name — I’d also have a goddamn job. Or at the very least, I’d have someone to float me a few bucks, so as to not have to eat week-old muffins from a dumpster. Kids these days all have 77 profiles on 52 different social media sites, they’re all swaybacked from bending over their smartphones all day, and yet they have no idea how basic human interaction works. I promise you, kiddo, there’s a Salvation Army or suchlike soup kitchen right around the corner. But they probably don’t have wifi, which is why you’ve never heard of it.

We’re doomed.

Loading Likes...

Quick Random Observation

As e-migo Nightfly put it so eloquently, there is no content, only SNUL.  Anyway, here’s Ace of Spades bagging on some puerile feminist (birm) who is, get this, trying to get people to read her vapid boilerplate by talking about sex.  You know, like all feminists do all the time.

Anyway, back in grad school I observed that it’s the girls who are almost kinda sorta halfway cute, or who would be almost kinda sorta halfway cute if they exerted some effort, who were the craziest.  Yeah, your 300 lb lesbian warpig with the tie-dyed hair was bad, but she was at least predictably crazy.  It was the chicks who mighta once, under juuuust the right set of circumstances, been considered not-unfugly that really stuck the psycho quadruple axel.  The borderline’s borderlines, they were.  And so just out of curiously I googled this Jill Filiopovic broad:

jill-filipovicYou must admit, that Glamour Shot (TM) is a rock-solid 6.  And just for giggles, here’s Jessica Valenti, who wrote a whole book complaining about being a sex object, when not complaining about no longer being considered a sex object.

valWhat can I say?  I have a thing for brunettes.  5.5.

Last but not least, Amanda Marcotte:

shot_2bOk, ok, but if she stopped gearing up and went to a sighted barber, she’d be cute-ish.  Right?

I know, I know, I’m an awful patriarchal bastard for dissecting these gals’ looks, and proving their point (whatever it is) to boot.  But whatever; guilty as charged – I voted for Trump, too.  But seriously: I’m tempted to argue that you can sum up all of pop-feminism with “we think we’re cuter than we actually are, and we’re going to get the government to force you to agree.”

Loading Likes...

Political “Logic” in the Age of Obama

UPDATE: as several zillion people have already snarked, I guess the Left finally found a pizza place they’re willing to defend from an unhinged, politically-motivated attack. The folks from Memories Pizza are unavailable for comment.

I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether this is a parody or not, because I’m honestly not sure myself.

This Pizzagate thing is just bizarre.* It’s awfully hard to believe there’s a Satanic pedo ring operating out of Washington, DC. And yet it must be true, based on the clear and obvious rules of “logic” in the Age of Obama. Consider:

  • Rep. Denny Hastert is a convicted child molester.
  • Dennis Hastert is a Republican, indeed the former Speaker of the House.
  • Hastert’s party membership is only mentioned once in that entire article, buried halfway down the page.

Now, let’s consider what we all know would’ve happened if Hastert had been caught, say, reading John Derbyshire’s blog.  Every single news outlet’s coverage would read something like this:

Dennis Hastert (R-IL), the Republican Speaker of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a leading Republican, conservatively logged on to a notoriously outspoken, pro-Republican website today.  The long-serving Republican Republicanly browsed several highly conservative pages….

&c &c.

Considering that child molestation is, in most Americans’ eyes, orders of magnitude worse than saying “grab their pussies,” you’d expect the kind of full flood-the-zone coverage Trump got when the Media needed something to smear him with and found an old off-the-record audiotape from 20 years ago.  But it didn’t happen.  The only “logical”  (in the through-the-looking-glass upside down Bizarrro-world Age of Obama sense of “logical” (hereafter, “logical”)) explanation for this is: Hastert’s got some dope on somebody.

That somebody, as Cernovich’s article points out, is John Podesta.

The same John Podesta who likes pizza.

And speaking of pizza and its possible ties to pedophilia, as approximately every non-Leftist, non-Cuck person who has ever taken a passing interest in this story has pointed out, the only Media coverage of “Pizzagate” (aaargh!!!) is a whole slew of assertions that it didn’t happen.  No reportage of the allegations themselves; only assertions that these allegations — and no, we’re not going to tell you what they are, shame on you for asking — are obviously false.  Ahem, excuse me, were obviously false, because nothing happened, is happening, or ever will happen.

Now let us apply the Three Laws of SJW:

  1. SJWs always lie.
  2. SJWs always double down.
  3. SJWs always project.

The conclusion should be clear.  Ergo, there really IS a massive pizza-based pedo ring operating out of DC.



*Now that Trump has proven we don’t need the Media anymore, can we please stop this fucking “-gate” thing? It is the most annoying thing in the world. Seriously. I’d rather listen to Fran Drescher reading the entire New York City phone book over death-metal covers of Taylor Swift songs than read another description of a scandal with “-gate” attached to it. Please, for the love of all that’s holy, I’m begging you — stop this now.

Loading Likes...

Category Errors: Intelligence

One of the Ace of Spades crew on the punditocracy:

The problem is that Podhoretz doesn’t cast the same analytical eye on every other politician. Perhaps Trump is improvising, but the experience of the last eight years should have taught Podhoretz that grand plans executed by politicians rarely work. Because they are not as smart as they think they are…just like Johnny boy!

They all went to the same schools, and go to the same parties and restaurants and bars, and — probably — use the same hookers. So it is not surprising that in the echo chamber of the Acela corridor they all are tremendously impressed with their collective intelligence.

Not to get all Baron Harkonnen here, but this post contains category mistakes…within category mistakes…within category mistakes. The problem isn’t Podhoretz’s intelligence, or the echo chamber’s estimation of its members’ intelligence. Nor is it the echo chamber itself — not really, as every guild profession is an echo chamber (try discussing a diet book that goes against received medical wisdom with your doctor, for example. The studies are all there, and you don’t need a PhD in O-Chem to understand the abstracts. And yet, “carbs good, fat bad” is still the prescription of every general practitioner in America). It’s the assumptions within the echo chamber, that drive the echo chamber’s thinking. And that’s our problem, too.

As much as it’s fun to bag on Podhoretz et al (is it ever!), they’re actually pretty smart. But alas, intelligence is a blunt tool. The output of even the best brain is only as good as the software running it, and GIGO, as programmers say. Everything that goes wrong with a Podhoretzian analysis has gone wrong before the first fact hits a cortex.

An illustration: Back in grad school, some guy sued our university, claiming that our department didn’t hire him because of his politics. The department members’ reactions were illuminating. While they of course all but admitted to not hiring the guy because he was a conservative,* the discussion quickly devolved into a bunch of leftoid moonbats reassuring other leftoid moonbats that there’s actually all kinds of political diversity in the department. And — this is the crucial point — by their lights, they were right. To any outside observer, this is a real knee-slapper, but inside the ivory tower the Marxist Feminists have real, longstanding beefs with the Feminist Marxists. The Judean People’s Front would, if given power, immediately execute all members of the People’s Front of Judea, and academia works the same way.

Oddly enough, that’s exactly the point Podhoretz himself was trying to make.

But we’re missing one profound thing about Trump, and we keep missing it, and we will continue to miss it: Trump is not a politician. He doesn’t think of himself as a politician, and he doesn’t act like a politician, and we’re all desperately trying to fit him into our understanding of what he’s supposed to be.

But being Podhoretz, this too contains a category mistake. See, to normal people, a “politician” may be of one party or the other, but we expect folks running for national office to actually like the country they’re campaigning to run. That doesn’t compute for our pundit class, all of whom consider “nations” an outmoded concept and “patriotism” the last refuge of rednecks. It would no more occur to Podhoretz to ask the average American what he thinks about a given policy, than it would to eat a Big Mac instead of arugula. The People are to be managed, not consulted, because The People have no idea what’s good for them. They can’t, because if they could, they wouldn’t be The People. They’d be beltway insiders like Podhoretz, and equally baffled by this odd creature who thinks America is for Americans, and acts accordingly.

To Podhoretz et al, and to my erstwhile academic colleagues, the precise arrangement of commas in the tax code has deep spiritual significance. They can’t fathom anyone not caring about this stuff, in the same way we can’t fathom the elaborate ritual taboos of some primitive rainforest tribe. They look like idiots, yes, but that’s not because they’re dumb. It’s because they’ve spent a lifetime enstupidating themselves in a very precise way, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year maintaining it. IQ has nothing to do with it.

*the university settled out of court. Which was too bad — I for one was looking forward to forwarding the seventeen zillion daily listserv messages I was cc’d on to the prosecution. Obviously nobody briefed the dingbat grad students on things like “discovery” and “paper trails” and “plausible deniability.” There would’ve been some Trigglypuff meltdowns, believe me.

Loading Likes...