You’ve probably heard that the Department of Justice, having arrested all the terrorists and drug traffickers, finally turned its mighty eye to the grave national security threat that is college admissions.  Various Hollywood types, including Aunt Becky, joined assorted CEOs and other rich douchebags in bribing their kids’ way into elite colleges.

Mmmmmm….. Aunt Becky.  Yes, I’ll wait.  Has everybody gotten that out of their systems?  Ok, proceeding:

To Normals, the idea of paying a third-party facilitator to bribe your kids into college is so dumb, it makes anti-sense.  Surely rich guys know how college admissions work?  You don’t take “the Hubert J. Buttpimple Memorial Thru-Hole” to get to the library because ol’ Hubert was some kind of outstanding alumnus.  It has his name on it because his kid was dumber than a box of rocks, and the college wouldn’t touch Junior unless Daddy ponied up the cash.  Since “donations to the general scholarship fund” are too obvious even for this age of idiocracy, you “donate” a park bench or something, and everyone pretends to believe that park bench is really worth $1.2 million.

In the same vein, Normals understand that elite colleges collect famous people as zealously, and with as much regard for academic excellence, as they do Diversity Pokemon.  Surely no one believes that a guy like James Franco — the star of Your Highness and the writer of the Tori Spelling classic Mother May I Sleep With Danger? — got into Columbia because of his IQ?  This is the guy, you’ll recall, who — though a rich, famous, and handsome movie star — begs random not-quite-18 year olds for hookups via text message.  It’s well understood by all parties that admitting him is a marketing move.

In other words, we Normals think, if you’re Lori Loughlin and you want your kid to go to Ivy League Tech, you simply call up the Dean of Admissions and do lunch, where over free-range arugula he’ll tell you that the college could really use a few new chairs for the cafeteria…. or that the theater department could really use an Aunt Becky Chair in Applied Aromatherapy, depending on just how bad the kid’s SAT scores really are.  There’s no need to fly in a “test proctor” from Tampa, or photoshop your kid punting a football, or any of the other idiotic shit the “Key Worldwide Foundation” (what, was “Acme Import/Export” taken?) actually did.

Now, part of this is just the ever-accelerating Third-Worldification of the United States.  Every crapsack nation on Earth has its prestige university, where all the children of the elite go.  But since it’s, you know, the Third World, the elite’s kids don’t actually have to go there; they’re set for life no matter what they do.  So the school maintains its elite rep by charging out the wazoo for hustlers to buy their kids places there.  It’s a time-honored system, going all the way back to medieval Europe (and colonial America too, of course).  So long as nobody actually believes the hype — that a kid with a diploma from Ivy League Tech is a certified genius because he’s got a diploma from Ivy League Tech — the system works.

Alas, we believe the hype, because the United States of America is now Autism Spectrum Nation.

No one who matters in modern America has a clue how social interactions work.  The reason Lori can’t simply do lunch with the Dean is because neither of them could figure out how to handle it.  The Dean knows he can’t come right out and say “five hundred large and the kid’s in”… but he also knows that Lori can’t process a subtle hint like “we’d love to help you, Mx. Laughlin, but alas, the last $500,000 in the discretionary fund is earmarked for parking lot resurfacing.”  For her part, Lori can’t straight-up offer the Dean a bribe, because the whole point of pretending to attend Ivy League Tech is pretending an Ivy League Tech degree means something.  And since the Dean’s on the spectrum, too — it’s an inevitable effect of life in academia — she knows she can’t offer to write a check to the parking lot resurfacing fund, wink wink, because the Dean thinks “nonverbal subcommunication” is some class in the English department.  He’ll pocket the check and walk.

This is why almost all the shenanigans are routed through the schools’ athletics programs.  Coaches know how to play ball metaphorically, too — it’s quite likely that they’re the only ones on campus who do.

The rest of America has been living out a kind of sorites paradox since at least the late 1960s.  A sorites paradox happens because language isn’t math, so we end up trying to quantify the unquantifiable.  What is the exact number of grains of sand you need to a make a heap of sand?

I’m deadly serious about this.  It matters, because that’s exactly the type of question that has driven American cultural life for five decades now.  How much “Diversity,” for instance, is “our Strength?”  I’d better goddamn well know, down to the exact number of Vibrants physically present at any given time, or I lose my job and we all get sued into the poorhouse.

But since that’s impossible to know, what happens in practice is the sorities paradoxification of pretty much everything.  Just to stick with a theme, everyone in academia, K-thru-PhD, knows the Prime Directive: Do NOT fail the Blacks.  But because the Blacks fail — a lot — on any objective measure, we can’t have objective measures….

….except we must have objective measures, for how else are we to be sure No Child is Left Behind?  We can’t just hand everyone an A, because how else are the SWPL strivers out in the suburbs going to brag about how much money they spent on little Snowflake’s tutoring and enrichment programs?  But we can’t hand out anything less than an A, either, because there’s a chance someone with the wrong skin tone might get one.  You have to have a completely objective measure that is also utterly meaningless, and that’s why the “works cited” page on your term paper is worth 75% of the grade.

Only what’s in the gradebook is real… but it’s also completely imaginary.  Yet you must believe it, against all evidence of your own lying eyes, because if La’Quavious didn’t earn his A, then how can you know you’ve earned yours?  Apply that shit all the way down the line, to every aspect of life — how else can it end, but in a raging case of Asperger’s?

That’s why the coaches are the point men on this stuff.  They, and they alone, can operate in the desert of the real.  The stopwatch and the scale don’t lie, and they’re allowed to cut anyone who doesn’t hit his benchmarks.  Because they’re grounded — because they’re allowed to notice stuff — they can pick up on the social cues that make this kind of scam go.  Everyone else is still living in Autism Spectrum Nation.

Some variant of this is the second-most common question I get asked re: my time in the ivory tower.  Sometimes it comes in the form of “What were you, stupid or something?”, but the gist of it is, knowing what I most certainly must have about life in academia, it’s strange that I ever would’ve started, much less endured it for all those years…

Coming from me, I can hardly ask you to believe it was idealism… but, believe it or not, that was part of it.  I had no illusions about changing the discipline.  Even if I were the kind of big-league scholar that could’ve gotten hired at Harvard — and I was light years away from that — the kind of people who go to Harvard are already hopelessly lost.  There will never be a “conservative” scholar of note until we dig ourselves out of the rubble of the West’s utter collapse, because the entire system is stacked against it.  In fact, “stacked” isn’t even the right word, as it implies that a conservative work could even get a hearing.  Modern academia is one of Joseph Tainter‘s complex societies, destined for collapse — just as the Romans kept stuffing forts with legions because they couldn’t even think of another way to go, so modern academia lacks the cognitive toolkit to evaluate an argument that isn’t “race / class / gender, therefore #OrangeManBad.”

Out in the provinces, though, there was once some hope of getting through to a student or two.  The professors were, if anything, worse — one of the main reasons “bad” schools are bad is that the profs there all feel they deserve to be at Harvard, and are openly contemptuous of their employers — but the students can sometimes still be reached.  For a while there, every class would have its secret shitlord or two, who could sense that I was a kindred spirit.  This, I felt, served a socially necessary function.  But just as video killed the radio star, so social media killed whatever was left of independent thought in American students.

The other reason I stayed, quite frankly, was that the show was so perversely fascinating.

Imagine you’re some kind of Gulliver-type explorer, and you reach an island of perfect bliss.  Clear air, gentle breezes, balmy temperatures, and all the delicious food you can eat.  And the natives!  They live to serve you, completely unconstrained by anything so antiquated as Western sexual morality.  Limitless 5G internet.  Anything you want to eat, drink, watch, read, do, say, insert, or have inserted, it’s all yours at the snap of your fingers.  Got it?

Now imagine that the rulers of this little slice of paradise do nothing but sit on the side of the road all day, smashing their own toes with ball-peen hammers.

That’s life in a college town.  The Left run everything.  They set the admissions requirements.  They have unlimited budgets, and since they do, the entire commercial ecosystem exists only for them.  All cuisine is “fusion,” you have to drive to the next burg over to find milk that comes from cows, and every single item of public culture — from sidewalk graffiti to public radio to experimental theater troupe — does nothing but flatter them.  There is no fetish so outre, no practice so bizarre, that you can’t find at least one other enthusiastic participant.  It’s intersectional genderfluid heaven….

…. and every single person in it is miserable.  I’m serious — if it’s not too far out of your way, drive down to your nearest college town, and just watch the faces.  You might glimpse a grinning undergrad or two — they’re too young and dumb to know better; they’ll be fully reeducated by junior year — but you can spot the tenured faculty solely by their scowls.  The only thing that temporarily alleviates the existential horror of their lives is getting outraged by something, which — since, again, they control everything — means tilting at windmills is their only sport; they play it with a cutthroat intensity the football coach can only dream of.

How can you not be fascinated by that?  To utterly refute the view of man as homo economicus, all you have to do is watch the facial expressions of people who are “the 1%” by any measure that makes sense.  It’s one hell of a show…

…until it isn’t.  Because that kind of self-inflicted misery grinds on you.  We’ve all stopped to look at the car crash, of course, but you don’t want to spend all day, every day, year in and year out, looking at car crashes.  It took me a good long while — I’m sadistic, I guess — but I got flat out exhausted by it all.  So I quit.

Random thoughts.

Over at Z Man’s I had some advice for young White men: Go Muslim.  The objection was mooted that Islam is not a religion for White people, to which I reply: Sure, if you were going to be, you know, serious about it.  I suggest that we take the tenets of Mohammed’s faith exactly as seriously as the Liberals take the tenets of theirs — as an all-purpose virtue scam and get-out-of-responsibility-free card.  Change your name to Achmed Raheem al Shabazz, slap a kufi on your bean, and feel free to tell gays, Jews, trannies, and feminists to fuck right off.  And if someone catches you noshing a bacon-and-whiskey sandwich on Friday night when you should be banging your head on the floor at the mosque, well, you still take Shari’a at least as seriously as Al Gore does climate change.

In fact, I’d suggest that Islam is fantastic for Our Thing, and we all should “convert” forthwith.  Why bother with the cloak-and-dagger stuff of having meetups when we can do it right out in the open?  It’s easy to keep SJW infiltrators out of our mosque — start every “prayer meeting” by reciting the juicier parts of the Koran.  They’ll be so triggered they have to leave, and as a bonus, we’ve fulfilled the actual “religious service” part of our federal tax exemption.  And as for Uncle Sam’s infiltrators, well… have you seen how the FBI operates lately?  I really would not be surprised to learn they start their undercover operations with “Hello, fellow extremists!”

Why aren’t we doing this?*

Ace of Spades’ morning report links to a piece on Taylor Swift’s “political awakening.”  Y’all know how much I hate tooting my own horn, but I covered this way back when.  Ok, ok, so I mostly just linked that for the picture — never let it be said that I don’t give the people what they want — but seriously, how hard is this to grasp?  Swift is now 30, which, since pop tarts age in dog years, means she’s got two generations of younger-hotter-tighter competition coming up behind her.  She’s going to hit the wall at Mach 3 no matter what, so since she’s nothing if not a very savvy operator, she’s getting out in front of her inevitable transformation into a “serious artist” (read: BMI above 15).  Give it another two years, and she’ll be openly embracing those bisexuality rumors, and by the time she’s 40 she’ll be touring with the Indigo Girls.  Sic transit gloria mundi.  At least she can keep herself in the spotlight a bit longer by being an obnoxious Leftist (BIRM, I know).

In the comments to a previous placeholder post, Ganderson remarked

 I choose to ignore the question as to why we have charged our colleges and universities with providing semi pro sports entertainment.

So should we all, but since I got nothin’ this morning I’ll address it.  If you’re not up on the history of American higher ed — and no normal person has any reason to be — it’s hard to realize just how recently college was a profoundly conservative institution.  My own discipline, History, was understandably a bit more retrograde than most, but Progressives viewed History departments as dangerous nests of heretics even when I was in undergrad.

It makes sense when you consider what college used to be.  Say what you will about the Baby Boomers and their many, many, many, many, many flaws, but they didn’t learn that shit in college.  The most obnoxious ones were in college in the Sixties, yes, but the vast majority of the Baby Boom generation didn’t go to college, for the simple reason that college back then was expensive.  That was by design, since colleges were always intended to transmit the skills and above all the values of the professional classes.  You went to college to become a doctor or a lawyer, but just as important, you went there to learn how to act like a doctor or a lawyer.

Think of the old classic Animal House.  It’s a “college” movie that would be incomprehensible to any modern undergraduate.  The main characters and the big villain are in ROTC, for pete’s sake.  Pinto and Flounder wear freshman beanies, the sorority girls all dress like they’re going to a debutante ball, and everyone but Bluto wears a collared shirt to class.  With a necktie!!!  Even Bluto’s signature sweater — which I have seen modern undergrads wearing, though they have no idea where it came from**– is worn over a collared shirt:

The “everyone goes to college” ethos wasn’t started by a bunch of cowardly hippies dodging the draft, then.  It was started by a bunch of weaselly careerists cashing in on Griggs v. Duke Power.  Which is important, because just as there’s no one more obnoxious about the ancient privileges of the aristocracy than the guy who bought his patents five minutes ago, so no one is more loyal to the Old School Tie than the guy who only went to class to network.

Again, consider Animal House.  It’s set in 1962, but it was made in 1978.  The Delta House guys are fuck-ups, yeah, but the movie is obviously a very loving send-up of that old rah-rah-sis-boom-bah stuff.  It’s an elegy as much as a parody, made by guys who got to college just as all of that was ending (the main writers were in their early 30s; Belushi was 28, as was director John Landis).  Look at how all the characters turned out — Senator John Blutarsky!!

It wasn’t until the mid-1980s, then — that is, when the first batch of Gen X turned 18 — that college sports became a dominant cultural force.  I must’ve written a zillion words on the unifying effect of team loyalty, so instead of re-writing them I’ll ask you to think of how else one could possibly weld a group of disparate people, from all over the country, who are only there pursuing their own personal advantage (if they even know why they’re there in the first place) into a coherent whole.  There’s boot camp, I guess, but short of having a drill instructor in your face all the time — a la Niedermayer from Animal House — getting everyone behind the football team is the only effective way.

If that doesn’t convince you, think about the “boosters.”  I’m retired, thank god, and I was never a “real” academic in the first place, but I’m right up there with the shrillest, fattest, most tatted-out and face-shrapneled feminist Grievance Studies professor when it comes to the fucking boosters.  You’re giving seventeen gazillion dollars to the school, to make sure that the football team has a fourth cafeteria and an on-call aromatherapist?  But again, it makes sense — if there were any direct correlation between “athletic success” and “rich idiot alumni,” Harvard and Yale would play for the championship every year, like they did back in the days when the only other school with a team was Rutgers.

Rich idiot Harvard alums don’t need the football team to win championships, because they went to goddamn Harvard.  It’s only guys like Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens, who think they deserved to go to Harvard but couldn’t, that feel the need to turn their alma maters into sports powerhouses.  And, of course, the dedicated Progressives who run all of academia are happy to take their filthy capitalist lucre…

*PS I made up the name “Achmed Raheem al Shabazz” totally at random, but it turns out that’s one hell of an inadvertent in-joke.  When I start my career as an imam, I’m going to insist that everyone who joins my congregation puts “Shabazz” in their new name somewhere.

**I know, because I’ve asked.  It’s hilarious to suggest to a coed who thinks she’s being daringly anti-establishment that she should actually watch Animal House.  So much toxic masculinity!  Not to mention the racial stuff!  Wow just wow I can’t even.  I’m surprised they haven’t exhumed John Belushi’s corpse and tried him for heresy like a medieval pope.

Consider a very theoretically simple form of organization: The infantry brigade (here’s a handy org chart).  Let’s keep the math simple: ten soldiers in a squad (led by a sergeant), four squads in a platoon (led by a lieutenant), 45 guys in total.  We don’t have to worry about “organizational mission” or anything like that, because the platoon’s mission is whatever the company commander tells it to do.  The leaders — the lieutenant and his platoon sergeants — should lead “down and across.”  That is, the sergeants should be mainly concerned with the soldiers in their squads (“down”), but also on the same page as the other squad sergeants (“across”).  The lieutenant should mainly be concerned with his sergeants (though on the same page as the other platoons in the company).

However, and crucially: The next-higher leader should also have half an eye gazing one level lower.  The lieutenant should rely on his platoon sergeants, but not completely.  He’s in the field with all 44 other guys.  That’s a small-enough group that he should have a pretty good sense of how things are going with the entire platoon.  Even if all four sergeants agree that the platoon is fine, the lieutenant should have sufficient powers of observation and judgment to decide that the platoon is not fine.  He shouldn’t micro-manage — getting low-level stuff done is what NCOs are for — but the platoon leader who relies only on the reports of his sergeants is, pretty much by definition, a bad platoon leader…

…or a good one, depending on who’s doing the judging.  Because, of course, while leaders should lead across and down, they also have to think UP.  A platoon commander also has to have some idea of what his company commander sees, and at least something of a handle on how his CO thinks.  It’s pretty likely that, in action, the platoon commander will learn something that the CO doesn’t know, and that would substantially change the CO’s thinking if he knew it.   The good platoon commander not only recognizes this information — often a significant accomplishment in itself — but knows the best way to present it to the CO, such that it fits in with the commander’s information and thinking.

The problem, of course, is that the company CO is doing the same thing with the Lieutenant Colonel back at battalion, and he’s doing the same thing with the colonel back at regiment, and he’s doing the same thing with the general back at division…  If you want 600 agonizing pages detailing all the ways this can break down, read Karl Marlantes’s Matterhorn.  It’s the best book you’ll never want to read twice, and when all the Boomers finally die off and we can start thinking rationally about Vietnam, it will be one of the classics of modern American literature.

If you don’t want to put this post on hold until you’ve read it, the tl;dr is: All it takes is one guy thinking up too much to get a lot of people very messily killed. Populate your entire chain of command with guys who think up almost exclusively, and you’ve got… well, you’ve got Vietnam.  The platoon leader who is “just following procedure,” and writes up the paperwork that way, will never get in trouble.  He might miss the objective.  He might get his men killed, a few other platoons ambushed, and half the company hip-deep in shit, hell, he might miss a chance to score a smashing victory, but his actions will be 100% theoretically correct. He’s covered.  If his CO asks him “why didn’t you consider such-and-such, lieutenant?” he can pass the buck.  “I radioed it back to Captain So-and-So at company; he told me to go ahead.”

Captain So-and-So, of course, put it in the fifteen pages of paperwork he forwarded to Col. Whatsizface at regiment, who included it in the three-hour briefing they gave to General Whomever back at division….  Meanwhile, the crucial information that started the whole debacle, like in Matterhorn, could simply be “despite what my platoon sergeant says, it is not physically possible for my men to make that march.”  Too much thinking up, not enough thinking down.

All that is with the simplest possible command structure, in an organization playing for the very highest stakes.  What happens with a big, messy, so-complicated-it’s-effectively-meaningless chain of command, in an “organization” in name only?  What happens when no one is effectively in charge?

In a democratic society, that’s the surest, most terrifying sign that a major crisis is just over the horizon.  Guys in Our Thing like the Civil War, so consider that.  Back in 1850, no one would disagree that “the Slave Power Conspiracy” (as the Yankees would have it) was the dominant force in American politics.  But — crucially — the SPC had leaders, who knew and acknowledged themselves to be such.  Good leaders, who saw the situation vertically — both down and up.  John C. Calhoun, for instance.  So long as Calhoun was alive and kicking, compromise was possible, because Calhoun saw the big picture, and, crucially, could whip his guys into line.

Calhoun died in 1850, depriving his side of leadership.  The other side never had any leadership to begin with, so the “direction” of the country fell into the hands of guys like Stephen A. Douglas — a brilliant politician, but a deeply provincial one, with scruples so flexible he’d fit right into the 2019 version of the Democratic Party.*  Douglas had no vision, only process.  For Douglas, the point of politics was politics, and because of that, hotheads like Preston Brooks and John C. Breckinridge had free rein.  We know what happened after that, there’s no need to re-litigate the Unpleasantness of 1861-5 in the comments, the point is this:

When you’ve got a junior Congresscritter with nothing but a big mouth setting the national agenda because nobody else can be bothered to, you’re fucked.

In theory (and counter-intuitively), representative government works a lot like military command.  Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the platoon leaders and they are — as much as it vexes me to write this — doing a good job.  They’re supposed to represent the viewpoint of their constituents on the national stage, and since their constituents are rabid antisemites and brainless hipsters, respectively, they’re succeeding brilliantly.  The problem is, they’re not thinking up like a good platoon commander should, and so you get the schadenfreudily delicious spectacle of the entire Democratic Party concluding that a “resolution” against “hate” — the easiest gestural-politics slam dunk this site of “kittens are cute” — is just too extreme for the American people.

Even worse than a platoon commander not thinking up, as we’ve seen, is a regiment commander not thinking down, and the Democrats are a Matterhorn-level clusterfuck on that score, too.  They really do seem to believe this  “Hate iz bad, mmmmkay?” resolution they’ve cooked up is a tactical problem.  They really do seem to think that all they need to do is find the correct wording, the right procedural shenanigans, to pass it, and the problem’s solved.  Stephen A. Douglas could pull it off in his sleep, but as we’ve seen, when Stephen Douglas is your best case scenario it’s about to start raining bullets.

A guy like John C. Calhoun would have Chiquita Khruschev’s fingers broken if she got within fifteen feet of Twitter. He’d go old-school Sharia on Ilhan Omar, stuffing her in one of those full-body trash bags and duct-taping her mouth just to be sure.  He might be fighting an unwinnable, Vietnam-style conflict — demographics, like logistics, are the only things that really matter in the long term — but he’d fight it brilliantly, and to the bitter end, because he’d know what was at stake.

The goofy geriatric Whites on the American Left not only don’t know what’s at stake, they actually think they’re winning.  Like LBJ and Robert McNamara, they’ve got all the advanced metrics that say the numbers are pointing their way.  The guys getting killed on the Matterhorn say otherwise, but that signal is guaranteed to get lost in the noise.

*This is the guy, you’ll recall, who sabotaged his own legacy-defining Compromise of 1850 just four years later with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, because he wanted to make a few bucks on railroad stock.  A not-retarded Hillary Clinton with smaller balls, that was Stephen A. Douglas.

I got nothin’, so here’s some quick commentary on pieces from better bloggers.

No fatties in da club.  (Stacy McCain rolls with the Chicago Manual of Style, so I’ve taken the liberty of “correcting” his spelling.  I’m street like that).  Tl;dr — some rapper says a “plus-sized model” can’t come to his bash at a Miami nightclub; feminist outrage ensues.  Some things feminists aren’t outraged about: The fact that said rapper has five children by five different women; that at least two of the women are suing him for being a catastrophic, possibly abusive, deadbeat dad; pretty much everything else about “hip-hop” culture.  For some reason, as McCain says.

Having been in and around academia for many long years, I’m used to it, but you all still probably find it shocking how naive ivory tower people are.  One could probably do some digging to illustrate the prep school / private college / grad school / tenure pipeline from which most academics emerge.  That would explain the naivete, I suppose, but wouldn’t really bring it home.  So let me illustrate.  Your typical “African-American Studies” professor dresses like this:

In other words, like your typical White ivory tower nerd, with one ostentatious “African” affectation — an Afro, a kufi, an African colors tie.  Maybe he goes nuts and wears a dashiki to the back-to-school faculty mixer, but that’s about it.  Google up “black Americans,” though, and you get:

I specifically chose a non-incendiary photo from a self-proclaimed nonpartisan website (The Hill), that appears in a thumbsucking article about the plight of African-Americans.  In other words, this is what your properly goodthinkful middle-class American is allowed to picture when she thinks about “African-American culture.”

Now, recall that your typical academic has more invested in hair dye, piercings, and tattoos on any given day than you did in your first car.  They’re the most shameless poseurs in captivity, but none of them would be caught dead looking like the kids in that photo.  No, it’s not that they’re worried about being accused of “cultural appropriation.”  They love cultural appropriation, at least from that particular culture — ask Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, et al.  It’s that they wouldn’t have the first clue where to find this stuff.  Their experience of actual Blacks — as opposed to professors of “African-American Studies” — is as brain-warpingly theoretical as their experience of “Trump voters,” “payroll jobs,” etc.

I guess in a strange way I’m letting McCain’s feminists off the hook.  We read “no fatties in da club!” and we wonder what the big deal is.  It’s a rapper behaving like a rapper, i.e. a cartoonish  parody of African-American masculinity.  I suggest that the feminists, being hothouse flowers that have never left the ivory tower, don’t actually know this.  The only Blacks they’ve ever encountered have been in “African-American Studies” departments, which means they were future Af-Am Studies professors themselves.*  And, of course, if you banned fatties in da faculty club, the teachers’ lounge would be a ghost town….

David Thompson’s commenters have the best nickname I’ve yet heard for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I was pretty proud of “incitatus Ocasio-Cortez,” but that’s nowhere near the comedic genius of “Chiquita Khrushchev.”  I surrender, good sir; the field is yours.

That article deals with “Red Yenta,” an online dating site by and for Jewish (or wannabe-Jewish) communists in Brooklyn.

“I was complaining about how socialist men don’t date socialist women and it really bothers me,” Isser says

and it just goes downhill from there.  Thompson gives us some highlights:

Libertarian socialist (28, she/her) seeks similar (27-35, he/him) to join forces against non-consensual power dynamics (capitalism, white supremacy, etc.)

Tall, tired communist seeking friends, casual dating… Likes: citrus fruit, weird music, using progressive stack to cut men off at meetings.

38, he/him, likes women… Maoism and Star Trek.

You will, I’m sure, be shocked to learn that

The yentas aren’t aware of anyone who’s found love through their accounts yet.

Having been around way more than my fair share of “red yentas” in my time (as you might expect, academia is chock-a-block with them), I can sign off on Martinian’s notion from yesterday’s post:

The place I really get off the bus, though, is with the butch lesbians …you can find one of them at the bottom of pretty much all of the nasty anti-normie stuff (racial, sexual, you name it) … I think it would be fascinating to do some kind of structural/comparative study between the role of court eunuchs in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires and homosexuals in the modern/contemporary Western university system. My hunch has always been that such people are primed to wield administrative power because they don’t need to spend hours of time and emotional energy on familial/romantic matters, and also because they’re bound to have strong in-group loyalties.

There it is.  Admitting a lesbian to your academic department is tantamount to making her the dictator (admitting two is a guaranteed civil war).  It’s one of the reasons I got out, frankly.  Even the extremely limited interaction I had with faculty politics showed me that lesbians, as the Leftest of the Left, win for the same reasons the Left does out in the real world — they have more energy, bile, and above all time than you do.  You simply can’t spend every waking minute fighting for a minor wording change in subparagraph 2(a)(iv) in the Official Faculty Statement of Concern about the Environmental Impact of Narwhal Farts.  They can, and do.  It’s their life, in a way Normals just can’t grok.  Think about that kid you knew who was waaaaaay too into Dungeons and Dragons, or the guy in your office who breaks down film on preseason games for hours because his fantasy football draft is coming up.  Now, imagine someone who is like that about everything — who can’t turn it off, even if she wanted to (and she will never, ever want to).

That’s who’s running every academic department in the American university system… and that’s the kind of person who’s trying to find love on “Red Yenta.”

Did I mention that college is like $35K per year nationwide now?  Send your kids!  TOTALLY worth it.

*It’s a myth that college athletes all major in AAS.  They used to, until the scam got too obvious.  Did you ever catch a game on ESPN and wonder what the hell “interdisciplinary studies” is, or why huge schools with every conceivable major already on the books would ever need such a program?  Just to stick with a theme, here’s North Carolina’s description.  “Because an IDST major lacks a formal Department, the major has no Director of Undergraduate Studies with whom to consult. The role of an IDST Faculty Advisor is twofold: to help the student develop their IDST 8-course major program, and to be available for advice if it becomes necessary to adjust the major program — if needed courses are not available, or more appropriate courses become available.”  Now why would that be?**

**For legal purposes I must note that the above is information only; no violations of any policy have been alleged, suggested, hinted at, inferred, joked about, or otherwise implied.  Any eye-rolling gestures I might’ve made typing all this were completely coincidental.

As so often happens around here, a throwaway comment in a post generates almost as much (if not way, way more) discussion than the post itself.  In this case, it was pointing out the really, really, really obvious fact that Barack Obama is gay.

I just kinda assumed that was common knowledge.  Ever seen Him throw a baseball?  There’s nothing wrong with being hopelessly unathletic, but I’ve seen little girls with neuromuscular conditions toss out a better first pitch than that.  There’s really only one comparison to Obama’s effort.  Then consider The Media’s reaction to Him.  I’m pretty sure “fag hag” covers 50% of the female, and 75% of the male, reporterettes on the tv news, which tells you all you need to know about the bitter Hillary vs. Obama rancor back in 2008….

But whatever.  This whole thing reminded me, once again, that homosexuality is a huge problem for the Left (they won’t recognize it, of course, but that’s because if they could suss out consequences they wouldn’t be Leftists in the first place).  To wit:

It’s commonly accepted that gays are “born that way.”  Which is fine if you’re a realist about Human Biodiversity, but if gays are born that way, then there is obviously a “gay gene” lurking somewhere in the depths, waiting for CRISPR to ferret it out.  A “gay gene” clearly entails that gene expressions have vast impacts on human behavior, up to and including making us to act in all kinds of anti-social and self-destructive ways.  If that’s true… well, so much for “race is just a social construction,” eh?

There’s a renegade theory of gayness out there, the “gay germ” proposed by Greg Cochran.  Guys in Our Thing seem to like this one, no doubt because they think that Jonathan Haidt guy is right and “conservatives” are obsessed with purity (guilty as charged, I guess, as I find the majority of gay behavior as icky as the next hardcore throne-and-altar reactionary).  The problem, though, is if it’s correct, we’ve politicized disease in a way the Soviets could only dream about.

“Sluggish schizophrenia,” like “mental illness” in general, was / is mostly made-up bullshit, but IF the “gay germ” hypothesis is true, THEN you’ve just identified a whole suite of obviously pathological behaviors that only manifest later in life after being contracted in infancy — in other words, sluggish schizophrenia.  Remember those FEMA camps George W. Obama was going to herd all the dissidents into?  Well, now he’s got a scientifically proven rationale for doing it.  Whoever gets the other side into the medical books first — Late-Onset Liberalism vs. Conservafluenza — can eliminate their enemies on public health grounds.  Given that the only folks who dare to look at the scientific basis of human behavior are Deplorables….

Finally, I suppose one can split the difference to “explain” homosexuality — half nature, half nurture, in the way that a person with a genetic propensity to alcoholism isn’t predestined to become an alcoholic, but should probably keep away from the firewater on general principles.  For the Left, this has the unfortunate side effect of reattaching consequences to actions.  Just as no one is going to argue that our society is morally compelled to break the bank getting an alkie a liver transplant, especially when he knew he was predisposed to the condition, so the 50/50 explanation of homosexuality means the end of all the ridiculous set-asides for HIV…. which means you’ve deprived the Left of another opportunity to organize a 5K fun run.  Think about that for a second — it’s practically a fucking hate crime.

I guess the only sensible thing to do would be not to worry about it too much.  To make, in effect, a social compromise — I won’t care about the “why” of homosexuality if you won’t force me, all day every day, to contemplate the “how.”  But since that’s how things basically went back in the past, when dinosaurs and Hitler roamed the earth, it’ll never happen.

I got nothin’ today, so here’s someone better with some notes on the craft.

I think there’s some generational change going on here.  The bad writers Z Man mentions by name made their bones in the legacy media.  Most of us here are older, so we no doubt agree with him — William F. Buckley was pretentious; Jonah Goldberg’s frat-boy act got old twenty years ago; bad writers and chicks can’t string together three words without referencing themselves; etc.  Unfortunately, though, I think all of those things are the wave of the future.  I’ve seen lots of undergrad writing, y’all — “spastic, pretentious, sorority girl narcissism” covers pretty much all of it.   That’s just how written communication is done in the Twitter age.

See e.g. here:

Instead of focusing on the subject, the writer focuses on himself, which suggests he does not know the material. Even when relating an experience or conversation, the good writer makes himself a secondary character in the story, not the focus. Bad writers are always the hero of everything they write, as if they are trying to convince the reader of something about themselves. Good writers avoid this and focus on the subject of their writing.

But he cites former President Obama as a hilarious example of this.  As with all the praise heaped on Pres. Sort-of-God all these years, one must significantly discount for the Magic Negro effect.  Still, with all allowances made, lots of people really did — really do — see him as a compelling orator.  I suggest this is because he’s so narcissistic — what else does one do in front of a captive audience, after all, but make the most of the opportunity to drone on about one’s fascinating self?  He’s only doing what they would do, given half the chance.

See also: Lots of big, popular blogs.  For instance: the Internet being what it is, and the Right side of the Internet in particular being what it is, I’d predict that Vox Day’s “I am humanity’s greatest genius!” shtick would go over like a lead balloon.  But he’s got a gazillion readers.  Again, making all due allowance for an obvious — and obviously effective — Oscar Wilde-ish publicity strategy, this technique builds a loyal audience.  For every casual reader like me (who has learned to skim the sixteen paragraphs of boasts to get to the one interesting claim), there seem to be five who really like that kind of thing.

Speaking of going on way too long, Z Man continues:

Another common habit of the bad writer is to use five paragraphs when one paragraph will do…They will belabor a point with unnecessary examples or unnecessary explication.

Here again, let’s note that the bad writers he specifically mentions — Jonah Goldberg, girls — are either well into middle age, or, well…. girls.  As he says about the fairer sex:

Female writers only write about themselves. It’s why autoethnography is wildly popular with the Xirl science types on campus. They finally have a complicated sounding name for what comes natural to them.

There’s no thought so banal, no detail too trivial, to avoid describing in full when the subject is one’s own endlessly fascinating self.*  Goldberg, on the other hand, came up in Grunge era and went to college at a self-proclaimed “most innovative” school.  In other words, he learned the SocJus MadLib composition method back when PoMo was still largely confined to academia.  Since every essay always boiled down to “and that’s how [subset of Pale Penis People], through [jargon], oppressed [Designated Victim Group],” the only problem was stretching it out to meet the professor’s page length requirement.  That’s how you become a ninja master at unnecessary explication.  Do that for a couple semesters, and you won’t be able to write a post-it note to your roomie in less than five paragraphs.

Nowadays the problem is reversed.  Kids these days are so well-trained in SocJus MadLibbing that it never occurs to them to explain anything.  To take one of our stock examples, if you ask a typical American college kid to write an essay covering the causes of the Civil War and you don’t specify a page length, you’re likely to get back one word: “Slavery.”  Ask them why slavery was a cause, and they’ll say “because it’s racist.”  Nothing else computes, so in order to make length they throw everything they’ve written down in their class notes onto the page (for those forced to “grade” this mess, the term d’art is “word salad”).

Left to their own devices, in other words, Millennial communication really would be text messages.  It can’t be otherwise — since all the dogmas of the Proglodyte faith contradict each other, you can’t explain how they fit together.

Z Man concludes:

another common feature of bad writing is the disconnect between the seriousness of subject and how the writer approaches the subject. Bad writers, like Jonah Goldberg, write about serious topics, using pop culture references and vaudeville jokes. On the other hand, feminists write about petty nonsense as if the fate of the world hinges on their opinion. The tone should always match the subject. Bad writers never respect the subject they are addressing or their reader’s interest in the subject.

Here again, Goldberg was ahead of the curve.  Like fellow blog-pioneer “Sports Guy” Bill Simmons, Goldberg got way out in front of an emerging trend.  Just as Gen X was starting to take the sociocultural reins back in the early 1990s, Simmons and Goldberg brought a recognizably contemporary voice to moribund fields.

Before Simmons, sports reporting was either your basic box score, or a long George Will-type thumbsucker about how baseball shall save the dying Republic.  Now, half the fun of being a sports fan is taking a child’s game absurdly seriously… but only half.  Simmons got that.  By snarking and over-sharing and throwing hissy fits and being the most shameless homer on God’s green earth, he showed his fans that he was in on the joke.

Goldberg did something similar with politics.  We all know that politics is showbiz for ugly people, which makes nerding out over policy the equivalent of reading Playboy for the articles.  The guys on political yak shows have exactly as much influence on the direction of the country as the bobbleheads on ESPN do on the outcome of a basketball game.  It’s exquisitely silly, which is why political tv, like sports tv, features exquisitely silly people like Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow… and Jonah Goldberg.  Like Simmons, Goldberg was in on the joke — you might as well compare the latest reshuffling of semicolons in the tax code to Star Trek, because We the People have as much chance of influencing things to our benefit as we do of fighting Klingons.

But that was the 1990s.  Since then, we’ve rammed another two generations through the SJW indoctrination system, K-thru-PhD.  It’s not that kids today don’t know how to match the tone to the subject; it’s that they have no idea there’s such a thing as “tone” at all.  Feminists write about petty nonsense as if it were the apocalypse because they live their entire lives at DEFCON-1.  At the risk of breaking one of the rules of bad writing, I’ll repeat for emphasis:  Telling a feminist — which means “any American girl under the age of 40” — that she’s writing about petty stuff simply doesn’t compute.  There is literally — literally, Millennials, literally!! — no difference in her mind between “the toxic masculinity at the McDonald’s drive-thru that forgot to supersize my fries” and “the toxic masculinity of the Red Army raping its way through East Prussia.”

In short, you should check out the Z Man’s ruminations on bad writing, especially if you’re a writer yourself…. but with the caveat that, in 20 years, we’ll be looking back on the twenty-teens as the halcyon days of clear expression.

*Or see Obama, again.  I don’t watch tv and avoid Left-leaning blogs like the plague, so I can go months without ever seeing Him.  Every time I do, though, I’m struck by just how ludicrously fruity He is.  Bill Clinton may have beaten Him to the coveted title of “first Black president,” but until we elect Harvey Fierstein, Obama’s got “America’s gayest president” locked down.