Monthly Archives: May 2018

Straw Man Judo

Leftism’s greatest trick is making the obvious sound esoteric.  The sum total of modern Liberal Arts “education,” for instance, is asserting that everything is a “social construction.”  Back in the old days they said everything is an economic construction, but the trick is the same.  “___ is a social construction” is just a fancy way of saying “if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same.”

So yes, in that sense, “gender is a social construction” — the ancient Greeks thought it was acceptable to bugger little boys, we think the opposite (though the Left is rapidly coming around), and isn’t diversity wonderful?  If we were raised by ancient Greeks, in ancient Greece, we’d be ancient Greeks.  This seems trivially true (because it is), but if you lard it up with 50 cent jargon and feed it to impressionable youth who’ve never thought about it before — say, in a freshman Humanities seminar — it seems like a big, important new insight.

More importantly, it makes arguments against Leftist positions seem dumb and pigheaded.  “Gender isn’t a social construction?  Oh, so if you were raised by Socrates in Ancient Athens you’d literally still be an American dudebro.  Wow just wow I can’t even.”  And that makes stealing intellectual bases easy, because of course Leftist academics don’t mean “ancient Greeks were ancient Greeks” when they say “gender is a social construction.”  They mean that big, obvious differences between men and women, like physical strength, are “socially constructed” too.  Raise boys like girls, and soon nobody will be able to open a pickle jar.  But since “gender is a social construction” is a beachhead fact, arguing against the latter makes it sound like you’re denying the former.  What, you don’t think the way girls are raised has some kind of impact on their bodies?

We need to learn how to judo flip straw men the way the Left does.  Obviously we can’t use things like “gender is a social construction” — you know, since we’re the Reality people — but it’s certainly possible to word our propositions in such a way that anyone who denies them sounds like a fool.  This is what I was getting at in the photo essay, below.  Why is this bad?

Make them answer.  When they try to retreat into jargon, make them define it.  When they try to imply you’re stupid for not knowing what “intersectionality” means, come back with “no, I didn’t waste 5 years and a hundred fifty thousand dollars on that stuff.  I was out working a job and having sex with attractive partners.  Now answer the question.”  Taunt them.  Mock them.  Be merciless.  What, specifically, is wrong with little kids playing store in the backyard?  Is it that they’re getting too much fresh air?  Have too many friends?  Will build too much self-esteem?

You know what’s “wrong” with that picture, and so do I.  But Chad and Stacey don’t.  Judo flip that straw man.  Make them answer.  Then sit back and watch some soy-addled amygdalae explode.

 

Loading Likes...

Rethinking Democracy

Just like video killed the radio star, HBD killed democracy.

Democracy, representative government, (classical) republicanism, whatever you want to call it (hereafter, “democracy”) is the best form of government, not because it leads to the best results — look around you! — but because it’s the most legitimate form of government.  A modern nation-state requires significant buy-in from the majority of its population in order to defend itself, because modern nation-states require mass armies.

The feudal system worked fine with a small, decentralized, agricultural population.  When sixty miles a day was the absolute max speed of a courier and knights were the effective fighting arm, you could defend “France” with a retinue of a few thousand men-at-arms.  Which was good for them, because in an without mass communication (and with illiteracy near-universal), nobody outside of Paris knew what “France” was in the first place.  One might theoretically trace his feudal dues all the way up the pyramid, but in practice, very few people knew or cared who their lord’s lord was.  Why would it matter, when the next village over had a different lord, a different system of measurement, and probably spoke a different dialect?

And then the Renaissance happened (as my students would say), and communication got much faster.  Literacy was more widespread.  Most important, effective firearms made knights useless in battle, and with that, the whole feudal system lost its justification for existing.  An Early Modern army was a mass army, an infantry army, and would need to be in the field year-round.  It would need to be paid and supplied by the State (no mean feat, and itself a driver of all kinds of other changes), and, most importantly, it would need motivation.  You can keep a small retinue of archers and pikemen in the field for a campaign season or two if you promise them lots of plunder and a discharge by harvest time.  Modern armies stay in the field full time — something has to hold them there.

Democracy fits the bill.  It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that modern representative government came out of the Putney Debates in Cromwell’s New Model Army during the English Civil Wars.  “One man, one vote” is the bedrock principle.  Only a government that respects its people’s interests in peacetime will have their loyalty in wartime.

Fast forward a few hundred years.  It’s no slander on the New Model Army to say that just about any old peasant could be trained to use an arquebus, and it’s no slander on that peasant to say that the issues he’d be voting on weren’t much more complex than his weapon.  “One man, one vote” presumes rough equality between all men, and in the England of the 1640s this was true enough.  Modern life, though, is as complicated as modern weapons.  Very few of us have the brainpower (or the free time!) to cast an informed vote on just about anything.

That’s an argument for disenfranchising the dummies, BUT: By what right, then, do we send them off to war?  Remember, the key is legitimacy.  Why fight and die for a country in which you have no stake?  Unless you’re willing to limit military service  to +2SD IQs (or whatever the figure is), you’ve essentially turned the American military into a giant mercenary company (read Machiavelli if you want to know how that works out, if it isn’t incandescently obvious).

The tl;dr: If aristocracy is illegitimate because such a government by definition doesn’t respect the interests of the people, then any “democracy” that acknowledges the reality of HBD is likewise illegitimate.  Modern political science — the whole schmear, from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke down to now, whether absolute monarchist or absolute libertarian — presumes that all men are roughly equal.  But they just aren’t, and the more we know about HBD, the more we realize just how UNequal we all are.

Democracy or HBD.  Pick one.

Loading Likes...

How to Fix the Universities

We got into this mess from the supply side — with “college degree or equivalent” now required for every job short of janitor, colleges had to start cranking out the graduates, standards be damned.  We can fix it from the demand side.

The cutout is “or equivalent.”  Griggs v. Duke Power said it’s rayciss to give your employees intelligence tests.  But Griggs was decided in 1971, long before collecting Diversity Pokemon became the national hobby (in 1971, the few Blacks with college degrees had them from real colleges, in real subjects, and wouldn’t be working for Duke Power).  Thus, “or equivalent.”  The courts effectively mandated a quota system, and it was up to the private sector to figure out just how to make one work (and in the process throwing a bone to the lawyers, who could endlessly sue over just what “or equivalent” was supposed to mean).  So businesses did what academia itself would be forced to do a few years later, after the Bakke decision (1978): Make “being Black” worth the equivalent of 600 SAT points (or whatever it was).

Still, a loophole is a loophole.  Colleges obviously can’t re-establish standards.  90% of the student body– and at least 75% of the professors — would fail out, and then they all go broke.  Nor is it possible to start a new college with real standards, because a) you’ll be forced to admit a bunch of substandard students to comply with “diversity” guidelines, and b) if you try to do it any other way, e.g. online, you won’t get accredited, because the accreditation scam is run by the existing colleges (this is why “for-profit” colleges immediately devolved into a scam).

So what I’m thinking is, start a new online “college” that doesn’t need to be accredited.  Call it a “basic skills training program,” and call passing the basic skills certification course the “or equivalent” the Supremes allowed under Griggs.  Our Basic Skills Cert Course would offer a test — call it the Diverse Undergraduate Matriculation Baseline Assessment (DUMBAss)– and intense online remediation for failed sections.  A pass on the DUMBAss makes you eligible for hire.  (Heck, you could lawyer-proof it further by doing a contingency hire — you’re hired pending a pass on the DUMBAss — and make contingent employees take it at company expense.  It’s cash up front, but in the end it’s far cheaper than hiring an essentially un-fire-able “employee” who can’t do basic math).

So long as everything is done with a random number ID, such that nobody at the Basic Skills Cert Course ever sees any identifying info, you can’t possibly be accused of rayciss (that certain demographic profiles fail the DUMBAss at much higher rates is not a problem until somebody sues… at which point it becomes hilarious, watching lawyers telling the Supreme Court that math itself is rayciss).

You’d probably have to set it up overseas — ideally right next to one of those Caribbean medical schools, but anywhere the Feds can’t touch you would do.  Incorporate in Bermuda (or whatever) and US diversity laws don’t apply to you anyway.  Do it all online, such that Basic Cert employees could “teach” their remedial sections from anywhere, and you’ve set up the educational equivalent of one of those online casinos… except providing a real service.  Not only would this get real companies half-educated employees, but it’d drive all but the biggest name brand colleges out of business.

You could set the whole thing up for about a buck fifty.  Why is nobody doing this?

 

Loading Likes...

A Brief Nerd-Enraging Take

I hear that the new Han Solo movie sucks.  Literally sucks, in that Lando Calrissian is revealed to be “pansexual” or some such nonsense.

This is a surprise?

As I’ve written before, the whole point of the new SJWars is to destroy something normies once loved.  But normies loved it, by and large, because it had timeless themes — good versus evil, conflicting loyalties, comradeship.  You can’t tell an actual story without those, which is why the sequels, prequels, and other assorted cash-ins are basically just 3-hour-long video game cut scenes.

Which brings us to Han Solo and his pansexual swinger pal, Lando.  The new SJWars did a pretty good job of ruining all the meaningful parts of the original trilogy, but all the intersectional genderfluidity in the galaxy can’t make Han Solo uncool.  Harrison Ford’s Han is the epitome of “toxic masculinity” – swaggering, entitled, with a classic shitlord smirk that guaranteed he’d pull twelve parsecs of poon no matter how fast he finished the Kessel Run.  But he’s also a real character, who matures to the point where he risks his life coming back to the battle to save Luke during the climactic Death Star attack.

By the end of the movie, in other words, Han Solo is a hero, and we can’t be having that.

I’d bet whatever price Jabba put on his head that the young Han Solo of SJWars is a whiny emo brat who spends most of the movie getting bossed around — and beat up – by girls.  I also fearlessly predict that pansexual Lando is the real hero of the piece, complete with a Chuck Tingle-style “love wins!” sermon.

This is also, of course, why they cast a kid who looks nothing like Harrison Ford:

This isn’t Young Han; it’s Replacement Han, the Han Solo who should’ve been — the one who has a degree in Gender Studies and wouldn’t shoot Greedo first because he’s against gun violence.  He’s Pajamaboy Solo… exactly as intended.

Loading Likes...

Friday Quick Take: Saving America with Old Photos

Chateau Heartiste has a brilliant suggestion.  Saving America might be as simple as showing Americans old photos.

This is the world we had:

This is the world we have:

How did we get here?  And which one would you rather live in?

I’ve written about this before, at greater length.  Aesthetics is a seriously underrated part of politics.  Fascism was appealing at the polls in no small part because it looked cool and menacing.  Consider this

versus this:

Himmler is a doofy-looking guy no matter what he’s wearing (which is why I picked him for the illustration), but a doofy-looking guy in that uniform is extra-terrifying — especially if you’re better-looking, or more popular than he was in high school.

It works the other way, too:

North Korea is a nuclear-armed state with perhaps the largest per-capita army in the world, but we simply can’t take them seriously because of stuff like this.

Aesthetics matter.  “Pepe the Frog” was effective counter-propaganda because it was instantly recognizable — and because the Left lost their shit so hyperbolically — but a real movement needs to have counter-propaganda that’s both effective and appealing.  Fortunately, the Left has made it easy for us.  Take those pictures from the Fifties, caption them “it’s OK to be white,” and plaster them all over social media, then sit back and watch the fun.  Don’t reply, don’t engage in any way… until the furor subsides a bit.  Then ask them just why everyone is freaking out.  Their responses — complete with pictures of the commenters — is all the counter-propaganda you’ll ever need.

Loading Likes...

Ignoring Consequences

One of the benefits of having ten readers (I think that’s what we’re up to now) and a robust comment moderation policy is that our site is blessedly troll-free.  Which means we don’t have to put up with what I call the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism.  Anyone who has spent five minutes online knows what I mean.  It goes like this:

  • If you were smart enough to understand what I’m saying about [insert Leftist boilerplate here], you’d agree with me;
  • You don’t agree with me;
  • Which means you’re too stupid to understand me;
  • Yet here I am, arguing with you anyway.

Which makes about as much sense as anything else Leftists do.

The problem is, Leftists have always claimed to be the smartest people in the room.  It goes all the way back to Karl Marx pretending that his sub-Hegelian flatulence was “science.”  As a basement-dwelling wankmeister* himself, Marx well understood how to appeal to neckbearded sexless losers (thrice redundant, I know).  You can get those guys revved up about anything if you cloak it in enough impenetrable jargon, and imply that mastering said jargon makes you mad, bad, and dangerous to know.  (See also: Dungeons and Dragons; every video game ever made).

In fairness, it does take some brainpower to “argue” this way.  Add to that the fact that most early Marxists were university-educated (back when that really meant something), and it’s easy to see how “intelligence” and “Leftism” got correlated in people’s minds.  Add to that the marketing genius of the Comintern, which gave them canned answers to every likely question, and  university-trained Marxists really could hold their own in a debate against everyday Joes.

The problem with that, though, is: Since being a university-trained Marxist is a requirement for getting a job in the Ed Biz, the quality of their training varied inversely with the quantity of the trainers.  Up through the Stalin years, Red professors would go all narodnik on their summer breaks, “community organizing” in factories and slums.  But that’s hard work, and The Workers are gross, so why bother if you don’t have to?  Much easier to preach revolution at a captive audience of undergrads.

So now it has been four or five generations since a Leftist has felt the need to actually argue with anyone.  They’ve been forcing us to copy the catechism into our blue books since Kindergarten… in the 1960s.  They just take it as given that they are Smart, because they have all the answers to everything…. and since they have all the answers to everything, they are by definition Smart.  It’s like the Hasselhoff Recursion, if you replace the self-portrait speedo with secret police and labor camps.

 

Having never seen actual arguments for their own positions, much less the enemy’s, they have no idea how to respond when challenged.  Hence the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism.  That they actually seem to consider this an argument for their position — and a good one, if frequency of use is any guide — tells us how far the rot has advanced.  Even obvious logical entailments escape them.

That should be a lesson for folks in Our Thing.  To over-strain the analogy a bit, we’re in a similar position to the Marxists circa 1900.  We’re the only ones who are arguing with actual arguments.  We have facts and data, and since you can’t get five Alt-Right (or whatever) guys in the same forum without getting nine different opinions, we’re pretty good at debate.  But we still have a Marx-style communication problem: The Left has controlled the commanding heights of culture for so long that we feel we must (and may actually have to) make our case in terms of their flimflam.  Any third grader can say “race is a social construction;” proving that race is real takes a university-level understanding of genetics.

And another thing: We have to watch out for second-order effects, too.  Just as our Cult-Marxists have fooled themselves into thinking The Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism is a winning argument by living in an intellectual bubble, so we need to make sure we’ve thought through some obvious consequences of our position.  We’re all against Lockean blank-slate equalism, right?  Race is real, IQ is real, all kinds of behavioral propensities are inherited, right?

What about Constitutional government then?

That Lockean blank slate stuff is the cornerstone of our system.  Even if we hold, as the Founding Fathers clearly did, that “all men are created equal” means “equal under the law” (and not “outcomes should be equal for everyone”), representative democracy assumes that all voters are roughly equal.  This might have been more true than not in a rural, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon frontier society, but it sure as hell isn’t now.**  The more we learn about genetics, in fact, the less equal we are.  At what point do we start scrapping the Constitution?

Let’s take the common (in Our Thing) assertion that an advanced technological society like ours takes an average IQ of 100 to keep rolling.  Not to advance; simply to not lose ground.  As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the IQ trend lines are all heading downward, and that’s without the accelerant of open borders factored in.  America is going to be majority-minority in 20 years; how are those IQ numbers going to look then?  If we don’t want 2018 to be the high point of human technical advancement — if, indeed, we don’t want 2018 to seem like some kind of sci-fi utopia from the vantage of 2038 — we’re absolutely going to have to limit the ability of the <100 to free ride off the >100….

Welcome to the caste system, North American version.  IF the “society needs >100 IQ to survive” is true, then without a big beautiful wall and a really top-notch eugenics program you can kiss representative government goodbye…. and even with a big beautiful wall and a top-notch eugenics program, it’s still 100-1 we end up with a caste system anyway.  I’m all for realism, guys, but when the Left calls us rayciss, is it really any better to reply “no, I’m caste-ist”?

Here again, IF the IQ thing is true, this is the reality.  We can’t let our own inside-baseball stuff delude us into thinking we can just deport some Mexicans and all will be Ozzy and Harriet again.  Either the IQ thing is wrong, or the Constitution is.  Pick one.

 

 

 

*The only reason Marx wasn’t an incel was that the 19th century didn’t roll that way.  Here’s the lovely and charming Frau Marx.  He married her for the money — sponging off Engels (whose Daddy actually owned a factory) apparently didn’t keep Marx in the style to which he felt entitled.

**My guess is it was about 50/50 wishful thinking, and every major Founder except that moony doofus Jefferson would’ve admitted it with a drink or seven under his belt, but of course I can’t prove it.

Loading Likes...

Haidt’s “Righteous Mind”

I see this cited frequently in cultural/political stuff.  This Jonathan Haidt* guy wrote a book arguing that politics is an expression of our morality, and our morality has several dimensions:

  • Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
  • Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
  • Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
  • Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
  • Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

Liberals, according to this, mainly concern themselves with the first two, while conservatives are equally attentive to all five.

Which is horse hockey.  Well, either that, or “liberal” and “conservative” don’t mean what “common usage” suggests they mean.  In fact, in modern political debate, Haidt’s argument is almost exactly bassackward.

Start from the top.  Care?  Liberals very ostentatiously don’t give a shit if their policies actually help or not.  How’s gay marriage going, for instance?  Anyone bother to follow up on that?  Did that loving gay couple ever get those hospital visitation rights that we were told, in story after heart-wrenching story, was the whole reason for gay marriage in the first place?  As I’ve pointed out before, you’d think the Left would at least be doing some victory laps at this point — “haha silly wingnutz, you said the sky would fall if the gays got married, and look!”  But…. nope.  Obergefell might as well have happened in the 17th century, for all the Left cares about it now.  Ditto the Great Society, the War on Poverty, Head Start, and all the other great Liberal crusades of the past 50 years.  They very obviously did the opposite of what they were supposed to, but if Liberals bother to think about them at all — which they only do if you hold their feet to the fire — they just mutter “needs more funding” and change the subject.

Liberals believe, with all their hearts and souls, that they care more deeply than other men.  But they don’t.  Ditto with “fairness.”  Affirmative action is fair?  How about slavery reparations, i.e. punishing people in the here-and-now for something unrelated people did a century and a half ago.  Pick your major that ends in “Studies;” being unfair to entire classes of people is pretty much the entire point.  Here again, Liberals believe, with all their hearts and souls, that they’re all about fairness, but their actions are exactly opposite.

Loyalty.  Haidt says Liberals don’t care much about this.  In reality, it’s pretty much the only thing they care about.  “Argue” with a Liberal on the internet for five minutes, and you’ll have spent five minutes watching your interlocutor trying desperately to outgroup you.  “Point-and-shriek” is the whole of Liberal political discourse; they have no other.  Conservatives care about loyalty, yes, but only to groups in which they have a personal stake.  The Left is always going to the mattresses on behalf of some group they’ve never seen, over “injustices” that exist only in their minds.

What about authority?  This has been a Leftist chestnut since Adorno, but like I always say, you can’t spell “Liberal” without P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N.  Here are the traits of the “authoritarian personality” on Adorno’s famous F-Scale.  (F stands for “Fascist”).  Any of these sound familiar?

  • Conventionalism: Adherence to conventional values.
  • Authoritarian Submission: Towards ingroup authority figures.
  • Authoritarian Aggression: Against people who violate conventional values.
  • Anti-Intraception: Opposition to subjectivity and imagination.
  • Superstition and Stereotypy: Belief in individual fate; thinking in rigid categories.
  • Power and Toughness: Concerned with submission and domination; assertion of strength.
  • Destructiveness and Cynicism: hostility against human nature.
  • Projectivity: Perception of the world as dangerous; tendency to project unconscious impulses.
  • Sex: Overly concerned with modern sexual practices.

Admittedly I’m so reactionary I make Joseph de Maistre look like a Wymyn’s Studies professor, but that list looks like “How to be an SJW in 9 Easy Steps” to me.

Saving the best for last: Purity.  Remind me: Who is it that’s always passing new rules on what you can eat, watch, hear, say, and think?  I’m pretty sure that, weirdo status whores like Rod Dreher aside, elaborate ritual purity rules are entirely a Leftist thing.  Show of hands: When was the last time you threw, attended, or even heard about a backyard barbecue where someone had to make sure to get soy dogs and gluten-free veggieburgers?  The Left is so all-in on Brahminical purity that they take positive pride in never having read things they disagree with.  They know with metaphysical certainty, for instance, that the “Sad Puppies” are bad writers… and they know this, according to their own words, because they’ve never read the writers in question.

See what I mean?  If I had to adapt Haidt’s theory to the real world, I’d say something like “Liberal morality is based on endlessly congratulating oneself for believing one only cares about care and fairness, using the other three to prop up this entirely unwarranted self-regard.  Conservative morality, on the other hand, pays attention to all five equally.”

Either that, or I’d say “Left” and “Right” are all but meaningless these days…. but that’s a rant for another time.

 

 

*How’s this for an unintentionally revealing statement?  Wiki on Haidt: “Haidt himself acknowledges that while he has been a liberal all his life, he is now more open to other points of view.”  Well, better late than never, right?  Though one wishes it took less than earning a PhD, teaching several generations of students, and writing a big book of psychological theory to get liberals to finally open up to other points of view.

Loading Likes...

Why I’m Not a Liberal, Part III

The law of non-contradiction.  I acknowledge it; liberals don’t.

Even back among the Greeks, clever folks noticed that language, truth, and logic don’t always match up.  We can’t talk meaningfully to each other using only symbols, but language is always open to confusion.  So you get things like the Sorites Paradox — how many hairs must one have, or lack, to be considered bald?  At some point, it seems, quantity becomes quality.

Most people who aren’t logicians don’t bother too much over stuff like this, but the implications are interesting.  “Bald” seems to have a definition, right?  But when you try to pin it down, you can’t do it.  Obviously “baldness is the possession of X number of hairs on the head” doesn’t work.  It doesn’t work as a percentage either (“baldness is having 35% less hair than the average man”), because “average” is circumstantial, too — I may have 35% less hair than the members of Motley Crue circa 1986, but 100% more hair than a class of Marine recruits.  You can’t make it work Aristotle-style either (“baldness is the un-actualized potential for having hair”) because again, alopecia etc. aside, how much un-actualized hair potential makes one bald, vs. merely a little short on top?

83% un-actualized hair potential

That’s what trips up even the logical positivists like Ayer (first link).  For a statement to be meaningful, he says, it has to be empirically verifiable.  But even so simple a statement as “Jean-Luc is bald” can’t be empirically verified without an empirically-verifiable definition of “bald.”  And so you have modern philosophers writing off almost the entire history of thought, and declaring the entire human race mad.  Not bad for a few hair follicles, eh?

If even so simple a statement as “Jean-Luc is bald” leads us to conclude that the whole human race is mad, it’s not looking good for the rest of Logic 101.  Remember that “law of non-contradiction” that this post is supposedly about?  Nothing seems more obvious than “one thing can’t be its opposite at the same time,” but does that hold?  Consider Captain Picard up there.  Let’s say he’s taking his Dimoxinil.  At some point he’ll no longer be bald, right?  Unless you can point out the precise moment — number of follicles, percentage of hair potential actualized, whatever — that “bald” becomes “not bald,” it seems that something can be both A and not-A at the same time.

That was Hegel’s great insight.  He called it “dialectic,” and by means of an untranslatable German word (“aufheben“), he proposed that what the universe is really doing is talking to itself.  It — the universe– is working out its seeming “contradictions” in a process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  Jean-Luc’s baldness (thesis) is aufhebening his hair-havingness (antithesis) and, through the agency of Dimoxinil, is producing synthesis.

Grant that, and you’re halfway to Marxism.  Add “envy,” “anger,” and “eagerness to murder people who disagree with you” and you’re all the way there.  Which is why I don’t do it — A is A, not-A is not-A, and that’s just the way it is.

I hope we all can see the appeal of Hegelianism, though, from this little exercise.  Not only does “dialectic” give English-accented French starship captains their hair back, it’s tailor-made for the Liberal “debate” style.  As Morgan demonstrates here, when Liberals are caught in a contradiction, they don’t concede the point.  They can’t, because they are Smart and you are Dumb and, just as paper always beats rock, Smart always beats Dumb.  So they go back and try to redefine their premises, Marx-style:  “Straw man! I never said cause a huge explosion, I merely suggested using this cigarette lighter to see if the gas tank is empty.” “Straw man! I didn’t say kill the puppy, I just suggested throwing it off this cliff.”

You can’t prove Dimoxinil gave Captain Picard his hair back, because you can’t even define “bald!”  Therefore Big Pharma is evil and their profits should be taxed 100%.  Vote Hillary.  Denying the law of non-contradiction, then, is an almost limitless supply of virtue fixes.*

Almost always.  But there always comes a time when Reality rears its ugly head and you need the law of non-contradiction.  For instance, Liberals’ “_____ is just a social construction!” formula is the most common denial of the law of non-contradiction, and in the TERF war it has really come around to bite them in the ass.  A “male lesbian” is a contradiction in terms, you say?  Obviously you need a refresher course in dialectics, comrade.  Off to Siberia with you — say hi to the Alt-Right guys in the next barracks for me!

Not that this will ever bother them in the slightest.  They take their cues from the Master himself:

As to the Delhi affair [i.e. the 1857 Indian Mutiny], it seems to me that the English ought to begin their retreat as soon as the rainy season has set in in real earnest. Being obliged for the present to hold the fort for you as the Tribune’s military correspondent I have taken it upon myself to put this forward….It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way.

But I’m lazy, so I prefer not to have to weasel out of stuff all the time (especially when it’s a product of my own shortsighted hubris).  The law of non-contradiction helps me avoid that, which is why I subscribe to it.  Which makes me a non-Liberal.

 

 

*The drug in question is DOPE-amine.  Get it?  [rimshot].

Loading Likes...

Why I’m Not a Liberal, Part II

Because I’m non-binary.

No, I’m not a golden-skinned wingless dragonkin or anything like that.  I mean I can do what Aristotle said is the hallmark of an educated mind: I can entertain an idea without accepting it.  Our Betters, the Liberals, markedly lack this capacity.

It’s a top-down problem.  From the top: It’s shocking that folks who proclaim themselves science’s BFFs at every opportunity are so bad at inductive reasoning.  For instance, here’s a list of Nobel prize winners in the sciences (plus economics and the “peace” prize), sortable by country of origin and number of laureates per capita.  Fiddle with the tabs all you want; several things become immediately clear:

  • only one nonwhite-majority nation (Japan) has more than 10 total prizes.
  • of nations with 10 or more, only 2 — Japan and India — aren’t primarily Judeo-Christian.
  • the only non-majority white countries with 10 or more (India, South Africa, Japan) have gotten Western Imperialism good and long and hard.*

If you strip out the ludicrous “peace” prize — you know, the one that Barack Obama famously won before ever stepping foot in the Oval Office — it’s whiter than a polar bear eating a mayo sandwich on wonderbread in a blizzard.  Tiny Poland (population 38 million) has the same number of science prizes as China (pop. 1.4 billion).  From this, an inductive reasoner would conclude that there’s something about Whiteness and Christianity — or what we quaintly used to call “Western Civilization” — that is favorable to scientific discovery.

Liberals would just scream “rayciss!” and report you to the Thought Police.

Nor are Our Betters particularly good at deductive reasoning.  For proof, I give you the collected works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (50 vols.).  According to Marxists themselves, nothing could be more scientific than Marxism, which lays down the Universal Laws of History and deduces from them all kinds of things which must — not may, but must! — happen.  Pretty much every single prediction Marx ever made has been wrong.  This is why we now have “cultural Marxism,” Third Wave Feminism, Leninism, Maoism, and Postmodernism, to name just a few — Marx was wrong.  He was wrong in general, and he was wrong in detail, so much so that the deduction

if Karl Marx said X would happen, it didn’t

is all but universally true.

Liberals, of course, would scream that logic is rayciss, and report you to the Thought Police.

The reason Liberals are bad at both flavors of reasoning, of course, is that they’re binary thinkers.  Outside of the most rigorously formal logic — the kind that’s indistinguishable from math to non-STEM majors — reasoning works on supposition.  Suppose X is true; where does that lead?  For non-Liberals, this is an interesting thought experiment.  For Liberals, this is the first step on the slippery slope to heresy.  Suppositions are not Approved Thoughts, and only Approved Thoughts are proof against potentially heretical conclusions.

I’m not saying I’m the world’s greatest thinker — I barely scraped out a C- in Logic 101, as I recall — but the very notion of supposing something doesn’t slam my sphincter shut.  Hence, I’m not a Liberal.

But forget all that philosophy hooey.  In everyday life, too, Liberals are the most binary people on the planet.  You know how, according to the Left, Clarence Thomas isn’t “really” Black, Sarah Palin isn’t “really” a woman, and so on?  We tend to write that off as typical Liberal hyperventilating, but it’s not.  They really believe it.  Good little Marxoids that they are, their mental world only makes sense if everyone is ONE thing and ONE thing only, always and everywhere.  They’re functionally autistic: They see a woman (or, more properly, a Woman) and their programming kicks in — “oh, she’s a Woman; run Approved Thoughts subroutine XX.”  A pro-life woman, say, fries their circuits… ergo, the breasted, be-vaginaed, XX-chromosomed entity that says such heretical things is not really a woman.  Gender is just a social construction!!!

[This is why, BTW, Liberals have to turn e.g. Star Wars into SJWars.  Luke Skywalker is an archetype.  We hardly expect rich characterization of a stock character, and in the original trilogy Luke is little more than a farm kid with self-esteem issues, but even that is too nuanced for the Left.  Luke is male, you see, and you know what lurking potential thoughtcriminals those males are.  So of course the new trilogy has to put Girl Luke into the exact same plot, even if that plot doesn’t make sense for a girl — Luke’s grownup identity is shaped by his interaction with wise old Father Figure Obi Wan and cocky-but-dissolute Older Brother Han Solo.  Girl Luke will no doubt do the same sorts of things with a Mother Figure and an Older Sister, but as anyone who has actually been around a girl knows, girls don’t work that way.  So Girl Luke will do Guy Things and it won’t make a damn lick of sense, but everyone will look the right way, so it’ll be a good movie].

If I had to guess, this kind of thing is mostly genetic.  There seem to be two broad types of people in this world: Those who think this world is all we can know, and those who just know there’s another, better world out there that could be brought into this one… if only we could rip away the veil and see it.  It has always been thus; the “this is not the real world” thing is at least as old as Parmenides (late 6th century BCE).  Liberals believe they’re living in the Matrix — and, of course, subscribing to the SJW catechism makes them Neo.  Some of the rest of us put our faith in the next world, but know that we can only truly know this one… and not too much of that.

I’m comfortable with my own ignorance, which is why I’m willing to entertain — if only for the sake of argument — other views.  Our Betters, obviously, are not.

 

 

*You don’t think Japan’s deliberate, fanatic adoption of all things Western in the Meiji era counts as imperialism?  What about the postwar occupation?  That’s pretty much the definition of “cultural imperialism,” you rayciss.

Loading Likes...

Why I Am Not a Liberal, Part I

In an effort to post more regularly, I’m putting up a series of short, slam-dunk posts.  These are probably boring, because I’m not a Liberal for the same reason y’all are: I notice stuff (Steve Sailer’s definition of Liberalism as “the war on noticing things” is the best one ever devised).  Still, for the record:

I’m not a Liberal, first and foremost, because I’m lazy.  This is the meta-reason, that encompasses all the other reasons.  It just takes too much damn effort to be a Liberal.

Not noticing stuff is hard.  I said somewhere that Third Wave feminism is so easy to disprove, a wymynist should be crippled by cognitive dissonance every time she goes to buy kitty litter.  With all that rage against the Patriarchy, and knowing (as she does!) that physical strength is just a social construction, she should easily be able to heft that giant econo-size bag off the bottom shelf…. but alas, she’s got to call the stockboy over to do it for her.

Pretty much all Liberalism is like that.  It makes a little bit of superficial sense when you first hear it — “you know, since girls grow up playing with Barbies, and Barbie never pumps iron, maybe Barbie makes girls weaker than boys?”  But then you think about it for a few seconds and realize how stupid it is.  Avoiding stupidity, I’m sure you’ll agree, is hard and getting harder.

And then there’s the time commitment.  I don’t mean the endless protests, awareness-raisings, re-tweetings, and all the other stuff Liberals seem to always have time for (not having a job helps, I imagine), although those are exhausting too.  I mean all those semesters in college (and, increasingly, in grad school) just to learn how to grok their special obfuscatory lingo.  The perversion of language is the bedrock of not noticing stuff.  Orwell usually gets the credit for saying that some ideas are so foolish only intellectuals could believe them, but everyone who has been in an American classroom, K-thru-PhD, has thought something like that at least once.  Such ideas are much easier to believe when you can’t even figure out what they are, but have to pretend you can in order to pass the class.

On top of that, you have to forget everything you already know.  American schools are pretty good at teaching nothing at great (and hideously expensive) length, but despite the teachers’ unions’ best efforts a few nuggets of knowledge get through.  It only takes a few historical facts, for instance, to completely disprove the Liberal worldview (biology only takes one: “Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina”).  I like a drink as much as the next guy (if the next guy is a raging alcoholic), but there’s not enough booze in the world to make me forget that the USSR used to be there, but now it’s not.

And then there’s the skull-cracking cognitive dissonance.  Horror writer H.P. Lovecraft said “The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents,” and he’s right — since all the things we’re required to believe these days contradict each other, correlating your mind’s contents is migraine-inducing.  I imagine the Liberal “thought” process runs like that old “Frogger” arcade game — you’ve got to hop from dogma to dogma, dodging the cars of fact and reason that come rushing at you at ever-increasing speed.  That shit’s exhausting; much easier to not believe in the first place.

Finally, there’s the smirk.  I hate working out, because I’m lazy, and do you know how much effort it takes to smug your face up Jon Stewart-style?  I can hold that pose for maybe ten seconds at a stretch.  Your more advanced Liberals, like Rachel Maddow, have their faces frozen that way.  Their jaw muscles never relax, even when they aren’t flapping their gums (another reason I’m not a Liberal: I’m too lazy to talk that damn much).

Which, if you think about it, is why the Left always wins.  They just flat out have more energy than the rest of us.  They have to — I’m exhausted just typing this shit; they live it.

Loading Likes...