PUAs Discover Stupid Professor Tricks

Chateau Heartiste is a very entertaining “Game” blog, which has just discovered one of the Stupid Professor Tricks.  On substituting various euphemisms for the word “race:”

What is it with lunatic libs and their pathological compulsion to deny the reality of race? “Red” and “blue” are social constructs to describe real world differences in colors, but that doesn’t mean the visible light spectrum is imaginary or a tool of the oppressive White patriarchy. All words are literally social constructs — labels created by social humans — to describe real world phenomena. Leftoids can call it “ancestry”, “population locations”, “human migration patterns” or “geography-based groups” that “correlate” with “sociological concepts of race”, but it’s all just legerdemain-slash-poopytalk meaning the same as race.

Times like these make the whole Explaining Academia series worthwhile.  I often wonder if anyone even cares about this nonsense…. but then some of it slips out into the real world.  So, for the benefit of PUAs everywhere:

In academese, social construction means “an incontrovertible, easily observed part of Reality that we wish to deny, for fun and profit.”  You’ll notice that, say, Marxism is never referred to as a “social construction,” though it’s the very definition of a community-based reality.  Nor are conservative, Right wingnationalist, or any of their synonyms, though again, they are entirely the creation of social groups, for social purposes — every theology requires its devil, after all.   Ditto capitalism, for the same reason — if it weren’t empirically real, they’d too obviously be tilting at windmills.

But race? Gender? You can’t get tenure saying “boys are boys and girls are girls,” and the ivory tower would be about as diverse as a Huffington Post editorial board meeting if they admitted that race is a real thing.  Thus, they are “social constructions.”

You Have No One to Blame But Yourselves, Media

Ace of Spades notes that, to hear the media tell it,

some good-hearted, well-meaning rioters were peacefully rioting down the street when they were hate-accosted by some Trump supporters who had gathered in a hate rally.

And there you have it.  It doesn’t surprise me that the GOP establishment is so clueless — they are, after all, the Stupid Party — but you’d think at least a few media types would have something on the ball.  But I guess they don’t, so it’s up to me to spell it out for them.

Yo, Media: The American people hate you.  Fucking hate you.  They hate you here, they hate you there, they hate you way up in the air.  They hate you on a mat, they hate you with a bat.  Anyone you’re against, we’re for; anyone you love, we hate.  If you gave Jesus Christ Himself the kind of coverage you give Obama, we’d all turn Muslim.  And if you gave Beelzebub your Donald Trump treatment, the Church of Satan would become the biggest denomination in America overnight.

You guys are at least 50% of the reason for Trump’s political existence, and you’re handing him the election.  You have no one but yourselves to blame.

Destruction is the Point

Ace of Spades reports on the latest SJW cultural freakout: Make James Bond a woman!  He asks:

Why is the Social Justice Warrior imagination so incredibly stunted that it cannot even imagine imagining its own new things? Why can it only imagine old things, given a new racial or sexual make-over?

Why are they altogether incapable of any kind of creative or productive thought whatsoever?

And concludes:

Oh that’s right: Because these are stupid, useless, trivially-minded people.

Which is true, but that’s not the reason they can’t create new pop culture.  They’re remarkably creative when it comes to inventing new “fundamental rights,” “penumbras,” and so forth.

Rather, it’s because creating entertainment isn’t the point.  They don’t want to be entertained… not in the way normal people understand it.  Their entertainment is watching others suffer.  They want “Jane Bond” because it’ll destroy “James Bond.”  That’s all there is to it.

Which is creativity of a sort, if you believe Bakunin — “the urge to destroy is also a creative urge.”

The Wisdom of Jon Bon Jovi

It’s all the same

Only the names have changed….

Culturally, America has always been split between Cavaliers and Roundheads.  The latter are Puritans, whose creed H.L. Mencken quipped was “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”  The former are proud, liberty-loving wannabe aristocrats, who tend to place their pride and love of liberty above such petty stuff as common sense.

Politically, the split is between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  Federalists want the government to serve the people; Anti-Federalists want the government to leave the people alone.

It has been this way from the minute the first boot from the Mayflower touched land, and if you want a quick and dirty version of the major events in American history, try figuring out which group was which in each time period.  As politics is downstream from culture, you’ll see some spectacularly odd combinations… usually right before some very bad shit was about to go down.  And if you can’t find one or more of the groups represented in electoral politics at a given time, it’s dead certain something awful is about to happen.

It’s important to notice, however, that there’s no necessary, or even natural, connection between the cultural and political groups.  All combinations are possible.  The original Puritans of Massachusetts Bay set up a theocracy, yes, but unlike their English brethren, they dealt with dissent by simple banishment.  And their descendants had no problem signing off on the Establishment Clause while setting up official churches within the several states.  And students of the Civil War will note that The Slave Power Conspiracy were, despite their states’ rights rhetoric, as Federalist as they come — the SPC, in the form of the Democratic Party, handed down the Dred Scott decision, pushed the Lecompton Constitution, and waged an obvious war of conquest to extend slavery.  They put through the gag rule, and controlled the discourse to such an extent that neither party dared mention slavery during presidential campaigns.  They were perfectly happy with federal power, so long as it benefited them — aristocrats tend to like the government they’re in charge of.

The bad stuff happens when one of the groups gets lost in the shuffle.  Politics just before the Civil War, for instance, completely marginalized entire groups that together made up the vast majority of Americans.  Where were the Roundheads in the Democrat / Whig contests, or the Anti-Federalists in the Democrat / Republican ones?  If you didn’t want to die for slavery one way or the other, you had no representation at all.

We’re seeing the same type of splintering today.  Both parties are chock full of Federalists, and both of them subscribe to the new Roundhead religion of globalism and anti-“racism.”  Cavaliers have effectively been outlawed — this is the “war on masculinity” the “alt-right” keeps talking about — as has Anti-Federalism.  Where could you possibly go to escape the reach of the American government?  Globalize or die.

Or vote Trump.  His candidacy shows just how far the old coalitions have fractured, and how unnatural were their marriages of convenience in the first place.  He’s seen a million faces of Americans who have been effectively disenfranchised, and he’s rocked them all.

Paradigm Shift?

You’ve no doubt heard the phrase “paradigm shift,” but probably haven’t read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which introduced the concept.  I’m not going to claim that you need to run out and read it — I haven’t, and have no intention to — but “paradigm shift,” and its presentation, need a second look.

Most people think that “paradigm shift” just means “a new way of looking at things.”  And that’s what Kuhn wants you to think… when he’s speaking to laymen.  But doublespeak is the hoariest Stupid Professor Trick of them all, and so “paradigm shift” means something completely different when aimed at the anointed.  To “sociologists of science” &c, it’s an ironclad epistemological claim: You literally cannot think outside of your particular “paradigm.”  This thesis goes by various names — “frames,” “the Strong Programme [sic] in the Sociology of Science” — but it’s all the same thing: Knowledge itself is “socially constructed,” so you can only know what society, the media, the Patriarchy, capitalism, et cetera ad nauseam allow you to know.

Like all Postmodernism, the problem with this should be obvious.  It’s the Ishmael Effect — how did Thomas Kuhn escape his “paradigm,” to be able to tell us that nobody can think outside his paradigm?  Once again we find professors asserting for a fact that there’s no such thing as a fact.

And yet it’s not obvious.  In fact, Kuhn would say that noticing little factual discrepancies is how the “paradigm shift” happens in the first place — observations of celestial bodies don’t line up with Ptolemaic astronomy, for instance, and so along comes the Copernican revolution.  But, again, that’s just a PoMo speaking from both sides of his mouth — paradigms are incompatible, but somehow the one transforms into the other….

But now I’m wondering if he isn’t somehow right after all. See, for instance, this Cracked.com photomontage.  Specifically this

541398_v1and this:

541378_v1In both cases, the facts are well known, and easily accessible.  Re: more money, US per capita education spending is among the very highest in the world.  And there’s no correlation between spending increases and performance increases, as even the ultra-liberal HuffPo acknowledges.  And that’s with five seconds of googling.

With ten seconds’ worth of googling, we find that nope, not a single US state mandates teaching creationism in science class.  A handful require students to “critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory,” and two others allow (not require) “teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.”  Hmmm….critically evaluating evidence and theories.  Gosh, that sounds like the very definition of the scientific method!

So maybe Kuhn is right after all.  Because these facts aren’t secret, they get brought up to liberals all the time.  You’ve probably done it yourself.  I know I have, and I bet your result was the same as mine — ad hom, then run away.  At the very best, you get a grudging acknowledgement that “some” studies “may have” said that… and five minutes later, they’re back griping about insufficient funding for public schools and those hicks in Tennessee mandating creationism in biology class.

They really can’t see past their paradigm.

History in the Age of Asperger’s

Holocaustianity” is Vox Day’s ugly neologism for American Jews’ square in the great game of Victim Bingo.  Just as blacks explicitly claim they get a pass on dis-civic behavior because slavery, so American Jews implicitly claim a pass on their Israel-first behavior because Holocaust.  “Anti-semite,” therefore, is just another iteration of “racist,” and just as meaningless — Black Lives Matter types scream “racism” if the Mickey D’s window guy forgets to supersize their fries.  It’s what Orwell said “fascism” is all the way back in 1946: “Something not desirable.”

The interesting thing about “Holocaustianity,” though, is that the Holocaust actually happened.  I’d be willing to bet that more pages have been written on Nazism than on the Bible since the 1930s, making it the most covered topic in that time frame.*  And yet, the minute anyone makes a Third Reich allusion, some combo of three things always happens: someone yells “Godwin;” someone yells “anti-Semite;” some aspie comes along to tell you how wrong you are because Poland hasn’t been invaded yet.

The first two are meaningless — ol’ Schicklgruber himself would have Godwin called on him in five minutes if he posted on the internet, and “Holocaustianity” is a quixotic attempt to make “anti-Semite” a Godwin synonym.  The third, though, is fascinating.  As Nate Winchester says, the internet seems to make aspies of us all.  Is it just that some folks feel they have to say something?  It beats my pair of jacks, but it also kills conversation stone dead.  If those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, then we’re well and truly screwed, because the lessons of history work by analogy.



*P.J. O’Rourke used to joke that he wanted all his book covers to have a picture of a Nazi getting ready to tee off on a cat, as golf, cats, and Nazis were the perennial top three topics in American book sales.


Cyclical Conservatism

Everyone knows Kipling’s bit about “the gods of the copybook headings.”  It’s the easiest lesson in the world to forget, and without the long view, it’s hard to tell when they’re coming back.  For most of us, I imagine, conservatism has always been on defense.  Who was the last major cultural figure to talk up old-school, small-government, Western civilization?  Enoch Powell was considered a bizarre throwback in the Sixties.  Guys like Lord Curzon went from being forward-looking statesmen to grunting Neanderthals in their lifetimes.  Both Hitler and Virginia Woolf (now there’s a comedy duo!) picked 1911 as the annus mirabilis when the world became “Modern;” it’s hard to say they were wrong.  One hundred years of default liberalism!(1)

But as the Z Man notes, that’s rapidly changing.  The “alt-right” is on offense, and judging by the hysterical overreaction of establishment liberalism, they’re winning.(2)  Now would be a good time to review the lessons of the gods of the copybook headings, and ponder where they came from.

It doesn’t need to be as pretentious as all that, but it does need to be done:

[David] Horowitz is a good guy to read as he spent a lot of time in radical politics so he knows how to play hardball. What he understands and what comes through in his column, is there can be no enemies to your Right. The Left perfected this strategy. They never spent a second defending or explaining the extremists on their Left. Instead they focused attention on their enemy, forcing him to complain and explain. The radicals these days are on the Right and the same tactics apply. No enemies to the Right.

This hasn’t always been called “hardball.”  There wasn’t even a name for it back when, because that’s just the way things were done.  Politics is forever lapsing back into the state of nature, where every man has the right to every thing and it’s the war of all against all to keep what’s his.  If you prefer, call it “the Chicago way” — you bring a knife, we bring a gun; you put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of yours in the morgue.

Somewhere along the way, the Buckleyites forgot this.  It’s one of civilization’s great blessings that we can talk about tactics as if they were principles.  Buckley “conservatives” pretend to believe — and I’m willing to concede that some of them really do believe — that retaliation in kind violates some kind of sacred principle of political conduct.  But that’s nonsense, as any brief glance at history shows.  Armies didn’t somehow forget how to make poison gas somewhere between 1917 and 1938, and Stalin sure didn’t hold off on pushing the button because he was a nice guy.  Only the guarantee of massive retaliation in kind kept these weapons from being used.

It’s important to note that, bizarre as it seems, liberals are convinced that they’re acting out of principle, too.  They believe they’re battling capital-E Evil.  You don’t compromise with Satan.  Further, they believe that conservatives are not just Evil, but stupid — too dumb to see the benefits of liberalism, anyway, or else they’d be liberals.  So every one of us they get fired, no platformed, etc. is an object lesson pour encourager les autres.  In an existential struggle, all tactics are justified.

Only massive retaliation in kind will convince them otherwise, and the sooner it happens, the less painful it will be.  Still nasty, of course, but as a great philosopher once said, you need to be nice until it’s time to not be nice.  That time has arrived, and the “shitlords” of the alt-right are not being nice with gusto.  When everyone on both sides realizes that the gods of the copybook headings are always right, we can have principles again.


(1) f any of our readers remembers the 1920s, please please please get in touch immediately.

(2) Yes yes, I know — “hysterical overreaction” is their only reaction.  But it’s even more hysterical and apocalyptic than normal.


I don’t watch Fox News (or any tv news for that matter), so I’d only ever seen still shots of Megyn Kelly.  So aside from that stupid fucking Millennial spelling of her name — which alone is enough to make me dislike her — I knew nothing about her, save that she’s one of Fox’s more prominent blonde bobbleheads.  But just this morning I saw a clip of her interview with Trump, and…. wow.  Just wow, as the SJWs say.

She be cray-cray, yo.

Seriously: check out those eyes.  That clenched manjaw.  That weird Brigitte-Nielsen-in-Red-Sonja hairdo.  That’s a rabbit-boiler if ever I saw one.  Yikes!

Nation Building Redux

A reply to ColoComment that should go above the fold.  CC writes:

Looking to the ‘way back it sure does seem as though even the nascent nations of the Western world needed a “strong man” with vision to kick them into nationhood, before they ever reached a road to democracy/republic/representation.

Yep.  It used to be taken as read that it took some strong leadership during the Albigensian Crusade and the Hundred Years’ War to meld the king’s domains into “France”(1). The 30 Years’ War played a similar role for lots of other states.  And our idea of more-or-less universal suffrage was still being questioned within living memory.  It’s just another link in a long, long chain.

I wonder what we might have seen in Iraq, had we even kept 10k-15k troops there for a generation to ensure security while the Iraqis figured it all out, and resolved (or at least figured how to accommodate) its competing religious factions.

Probably nothing, alas.  There’s lots of precedent for this  — the British and French were pretty good at suppressing tribal warfare in their domains, and the British, at least, went to great lengths to help religions get along.  Again, India is the best-case scenario.

I wonder what we might have achieved in Iraq, had we found and installed a charismatic leader with a vision, and had we also a century of our influence.

Me too.  Historically, that’s the only sure way to proceed.  That’s how the Romans did it — install a friendly client king and give him a legion or two to play with, under the direction of a Roman “adviser.”  Ditto the British in India — they never did run the whole place directly out of London; even after 1900 there were still a gazillion little “princely states” like Gwalior scattered all over the place.

But, alas, that’s raaaaacist.  So we did the only thing we could do, which is also the worst thing we could’ve done: basically, we “decolonized” the place.

The British pulled out of Africa by slapping some lines down on a map and handing the keys to the nearest bunch of natives in neckties.  As they walked out the door, they told the new “government” that, to be a real nation, they’d have to get an army, a university, a medical school, and a national airline.  Oh, and hold an election.  So that’s what the natives did, on the hallowed 3rd World principle of “one man, one vote, one time.”  The new President-for-Life then did what presidents for life always do.  He made his brother the commander in chief of the army, made his first wife’s second cousin the university chancellor, put some tribal witch doctor in charge of the medical school, and let his third wife’s friend’s former roommate run the airline.  And now squatters are living on the runway, using medical textbooks for kindling.

You know, exactly like that bastard Lord Curzon predicted.  Crusty old imperialists always said that the moment the British left India, there wouldn’t be a rupee or a virgin left between Peshawar and Goa.  The same fate awaited Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan…. Imperialism is a sucker’s bet, and always has been, but it’s a damn sight better than the fakey-fake incoherent pseudo-imperialism we call “nation building.”  Put a client king in charge — the highly underrated sonofabitch system — or nuke the place from orbit.  It’s the only way to be sure.


(1) Lord knows what they say now; probably that history’s two most important Frenchmen were some cross-dressing cabaret singer and Toussaint L’Ouverture.

From the “Cognitive Dissonance is Bullshit” Files

Sorry, Gary, but even you have to admit this is stretching it:

Is it not time for a simple “Bannishment” of the Pet Leech? I realize that nobody wants to open up a “BlackList” situation but why not just say “you are done” to V.D. and his publishing house and obvious cohort saboteurs. If that is to much at least cut out V.D….It may leave out a small sum of quality works that sadly will not be recognized but that is a small price to pay for the quality we lose with his contributors sweeping the votes.

Now, I’m not a sci-fi fan.  I have no dog in this fight, save pas d’ennemis a droit.  But seriously, y’all.  As I understand it, the whole “Sad Puppies” deal went like this:

  1. author Larry Correia alleged that the Hugo Awards were a clique who consistently excluded works because of the authors’ politics. So
  2. Correia got a bunch of conservative writers on the ballot.
  3.  The conservatives were systematically excluded.
  4. After which, the clique asserted that no, there was no blacklist, it’s just that all those works by conservative authors sucked.
  5. After which, they changed the rules in an attempt to blacklist conservative authors.
  6. Which prompted Vox Day to game the system even more.  GOTO 3.

Which brings us to now, where they’re still maintaining that it’s not a blacklist, even when they’re explicitly discussing a blacklist.  You’d think that’d cause a weensy bit of pain in the ol’ gulliver…. but no.

Hence, cognitive dissonance is bullshit, and the true heuristic — at least for this group — is Nate Winchester’s: feelz b4 realz.  They feel that Vox Day should be blacklisted, and they feel that they’re opposed blacklists, therefore blacklisting Vox Day is not blacklisting.  They are, as Anonymous Conservative argues at length, all r-selectors.  They’re rabbits, and the whole world, to them, is a big sunny grassy field that goes on forever.  They never have to think about how to obtain their objectives, because all they could ever want is right there for the taking, and always will be.  Thus they “reason” — and I believe they really do think of it as reasoning — in swillogisms: I like astrology; and I “fucking love science;” therefore astrology is scientific.

Cognitive dissonance is only for conservatives, because for SJWs, it never rises to the level of cognition at all.