Happy Inauguration Day, Lefties!!

And as you desperately seek your Safe Spaces, remember — YOU made this happen.

If you hadn’t hurled yourselves lemming-like over the cliffs of cult-marx, identity politics insanity, dragging the unwilling nation kicking and screaming behind you, none of this would be happening.  While some Americans like Donald Trump’s policies and would’ve voted for him anyway, many more — many, many more — voted for him just to spite you.  Lots of us Deplorables are already calling the 2016 election The Great Fuck You, and we do mean you, Snowflake.  It’s all your fault.

It’s all your fault.

It’s all your fault.

So suck it, you petulant totalitarian losers.  All those precedents your president set?  They’re ours now.  That pen, that phone…  Donald Trump has one huge hand on each.

You did this, Snowflakes. And if we can’t make America great again, at least we can make you whiny little bitches suffer at least the smallest little bit of what we suffered these last eight years.  May you enjoy every single minute of it.

Zero Follow-Through

This started out as a reply to KR, below, but then it became a whole post, like so:

Lefties are like my golf shots: random, spastic, and painful to watch.  And part of the reason both suck is the same: poor follow-though.  For instance, KR tells the tale of a sad “gender-fluid” individual who insists on being called by plural pronouns, because “she (?) found gender pronouns profoundly upsetting.”  Calling her “her” is an affront to this kid’s identity…..

….BUT: If we grant that “gender identity” is

  • a) a primary component of one’s overall personal identity, and
  • b) completely malleable, and
  • c) a proper object for politics

— all of which this kid insists we do, whether or not she’d (be able to) articulate it like that — then what part of one’s identity isn’t?

Let’s say I start walking around campus, insisting that I’m no longer Severian, blogger extraordinaire, but Napoleon Bonaparte.  When people call me on this — “hey, so you decided to drop that stupid blog handle, eh?” — I insist that no no, I’m really Napoleon Bonaparte.  I was born on Corsica in 1769, I beat the Russians at Austerlitz, I revolutionized the French legal system, I schtupped Josephine on the regular, the works.

How is this any different than me declaring myself “gender-fluid” and insisting on going by “xyr”?

I know, I know, but try it.  Can you prove I’m not Napoleon?  How do we really know anything about the “historical” Napoleon, anyway?  History, after all, is a social construction like anything else, and is famously written by the winners.  By stating that Napoleon “died” in 1821, we’re really just affirming the existing power dynamics put forth by Prince Metternich, that cis/het/pat white bastard, at the Congress of Vienna.  And don’t you dare say that I’d be 248 years old if that were true, which is impossible — what are you, some kind of “age-ist”?  Nor can you appeal to DNA evidence — if Bruce Jenner is really a woman despite Y chromosomes and a full package, then the mismatch of my and Napoleon’s nucleotides is equally meaningless.  Oh, and don’t even think about suggesting schizophrenia as an explanation.  Is “gender dysphoria” — having all the outward signs of being one sex but knowing you’re the other — a mental illness?  Obviously not, you walking hate crime.  Thus I AM Napoleon, and I demand to be addressed as such.

“Your majesty” is acceptable, as is “your highness.”  You can call me the Little Corporal, but then I’d have to kill you.  And if you think this is satire, wait a few years.

Reductio ad Leftism

Stacy McCain has some questions for the radical feminists:

Any skeptic must ask, why are the categories of “man” and “woman” political? Why is there a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women,” what does it mean to describe heterosexuality as an “economic system,” and what manner of “society” could exist without heterosexuality?

Let me take a stab at answering them.  Now, obviously these are rhetorical questions — the answer, as McCain notes in the very next sentence, is: “Wittig’s purpose is to destroy “society” as it exists.”  What I want to do here is explore some of the “thought” process behind this rhetorical strategy, because trust me, your kids are getting this in college.

There’s a nugget of truth in every Big Idea Leftist academics (BIRM) have farted out over the last half century… so I guess technically it should be “sharted out,” but whatever, point is, all academic theorizing is a variation of Jon Stewart’s “clown nose on / clown nose off” rhetorical strategy.  Stewart makes some asinine fanservice remark, and if he gets too much blowback for being an obvious partisan hack, he says “oh lighten up, it was just a joke,” and points to his smirking fanbois as evidence.  If he doesn’t get called on it, though, he and all his fanbois repeat it over and over as if it’s a serious bit of political analysis, which enables them to claim that they’re Smarter and Better Informed Than You even though they get all their profound mindthoughts from a Comedy Central bobblehead.

Academia works the same way.  They like to pretend that everything, and I do mean everything, is words and nothing but words.  Which is tautologically true: Since we can only think in words, words are necessarily what we think in.  So what happens if we change the words?

No, seriously.  Maybe you weren’t a huge nerd as a teenager, but trust me, this stuff is catnip to a certain kind of dork who thinks he’s way smarter than he actually is.  Normies see you calling a rabbit a smeerp and laugh, because hey, it’s still just a rabbit.  But playing with words does change your perceptions.  Consider these definitions of “human being:”

  • A human being is a rational animal, the only known rational animal in the universe.
  • A human being is a great ape, halfway in size between a chimpanzee and a gorilla.

Both equally true, but oh what a difference!  Clown nose off, this is persuasion, a selective presentation of facts towards a rhetorical end.  Clown nose on, and in comes the unstated but lethally important qualifier, the suggestion of which is the whole point of the exercise:  “A human being is nothing but a great ape.”

So the tautology

  • “as we can only think in words, we think in words”

becomes, clown nose on,

  • “as we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with reality”

which with the addition of some baggy pants, floppy shoes, and a seltzer horn, becomes

  • “as words mediate our interaction with reality, words create our reality.”

which of course is logically equivalent to

  • “reality itself is nothing but words.”

And boom, you’re a Social Justice Warrior.*  My preferred pronouns are “xyr” and “jermajesty.”


Should anyone challenge you on this… well, since you usually only hear stuff like this in the academy, what you do is fail ’em and report ’em to the Dean for hate speech.  But if someone on the Board of Regents, say, asks you — pink slip in hand — if you’re really teaching undergrads that reality itself is nothing but words, you take the clown nose off and say oh no, of course not, we’re only teaching that words influence perception.

And that’s how you get feminists asserting that “man” and “woman” are political, that there’s a class struggle between them, et cetera ad nauseam.  It’d make your eyes bleed to do this for every item on the list, but here’s a brief e.g.:

“Masculinity,” say, is both DEscriptive and PREscriptive.  When we define behavior X as “masculine,” we’re saying “X is what real men do;” at the same time, we’re also saying “if you want to be considered a real man, do X.”  And who is this “we”?  Why, the community of language-users, of course.  And since that community changes, the sense of the word also changes — the Vikings had a word for “masculine,” no doubt, but it meant something very different than the English word.  Which means notions like “masculinity” are (nothing but) “social constructions;” they change as society changes.  And how does society change?  Via politics, of course, since “politics” is defined as the interplay of personal preferences in the public sphere.  Thus words like “man” and “woman” are, at bottom, political categories.  You and I and my prison gang voted; you’re the woman.

Feel free to take the final exam: If social life is nothing but economics — which follows, clown nose on, from the observation that people exchange stuff for other stuff — you should easily be able to deduce why heterosexuality is an economic system, and thus explain the quasi-Marxist class war between the sexes.

Yes, they really do think like this.  They have to — without the notion that life itself is nothing but words, Leftism will always founder on Reality’s rocks.  I’ve given you the academic version, but you can see it everywhere these days.  It’s why the Cult will never give up on the idea that Putin hacked the election, for example — if he didn’t, then the American people really did prefer Trump to their terrible, horrible, no good very bad candidate Hillary, which is unpossible.  So they’ll keep repeating it until it’s true, and it will be true — until the last remnants of the USA are overrun by superintelligent apes, it’ll be a true fact that everyone knows Putin hacked the election for Trump.  Because if you can just get enough people to repeat if for long enough, reality itself will conform to your magic, magic words, because after all, since we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with….




*The Six Readers will undoubtedly recognize this as The Gem, aka The Worst Argument in the World.  I seriously can’t recommend David Stove enough to y’all.

The Force Field of Self Esteem

That armor's too strong for blasters...

That armor’s too strong for blasters…

Wait, no, that’s not the one I want…


Ah yes, much better.  Anyway, a brief thought inspired by this and this.  The latter is about religion:

According to reports coming out of Hope Community Church, first-time visitor Brittany Wilson remains unsure about why she needed “this Jesus guy” in her life after the pastor spent the entire Sunday sermon reiterating how awesome, amazing, unique, and special she is.

“The message was super-encouraging. It was all about how I need to let the goodness within me shine and ‘just do me,’ without worrying about all the haters,” Wilson said after the service.

“But then the pastor said I needed Jesus, out of the blue. Like, what? It made no sense. I’m not sure what He has to offer that I don’t, based on how wonderful the pastor said I am.”

The former is about social changes causing political restructuring.  At Z Man’s I said:

The biggest challenge is going to be handling the precipitous drop in functional intelligence. NOT IQ, which is grossly overemphasized (by us deplorables, anyway), but functional intelligence. Big problems require sustained thought, and lots of us can’t do it. And of those who can’t, the vast majority — looking at you, Millennials — not only don’t know they can’t do it, but think they ARE doing it. Consider that a blog post over 500 words doesn’t get read… and even 500 is a slog when you’re used to Tweets. Reading multiple posts (or, God forbid, an entire one of those “book” thingies), taking notes, collating information, sifting, evaluating… not only do lots of us not know how to do this, we don’t even know that it can be done. Trump isn’t Hector Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho, but any government structure that retains a popular vote in the Twitter age will trend hard that way, without major structural overhaul.

I’m only pointing out the obvious, but someone has to, I suppose, and at least you got a Slave Leia picture to sweeten the deal.  Combine the two — the Gospel of Self-Esteem and Twitter, I mean, not Slave Leia and another Slave Leia —


wait, what were we talking about again?  Ah yes, combine self-esteem and the ADD-inducing effects of technology, and you get an entire generation that’s incapable of sustained thought… and worse, thinks it is so capable, and in fact does it all the time, and how dare you suggest they don’t know how to do something?  Because, as the Jesus lady says, if you’re special unique and perfect just the way you are, why would you ever need any but the skills and knowledge you already possess?

And we all fall victim to it.  For instance, I’m frequently bewildered by liberals’ ability to flagrantly contradict themselves — often within a few sentences, sometimes in the very next breath — without suffering aneurysm-inducing cognitive dissonance.  I shouldn’t be, though, as I “teach” Millennials day in and day out.  They think in Tweets.  I mean that almost literally (“literally,” he said, snapping another selfie with is iPhone) — every sentence they hear is a discrete, context-less meme.  It doesn’t matter if the meme is true, since there is no “truth,” only popularity.  If it doesn’t get retweeted or upvoted, it ceases to exist.

Thus, “contradiction” is a meaningless concept for them.  Both X and Not-X get upvoted, so both of them are somehow true.  Look, I don’t pretend to understand it, but then again, I’m comfortable with the fact of my own limitations.  When I say “I don’t understand it,” it’s taken as read by us old farts that that’s why I’m posting my thoughts here — I’m thinking it through, and would appreciate input.  These kids, though, don’t grok limits to their understanding — if they don’t understand something, it is by definition irrelevant, and can, indeed must!, be ignored.  Contrary information and badthoughts get bounced off their force fields.

A Brief Note on Higher Ed

UPDATE: see here for more (and here for good free educational resources.

Read ’em and weep:

For some reason, a widespread belief exists that the president of a college or a university (or even a 2-year junior college) deserves to live a life of luxury.  No fewer than 30 higher education presidents are earning over a million dollars a year, compensation that rightly should outrage families indebting themselves to pay tuition.

The sad truth is that higher education has gone from being a calling to a racket, in all too many cases. And the rot extends from the top to the bottom of the status hierarchy. Arguably, higher education is the biggest industry on the country, and certainly for many families with children in college, it is the second most expensive purchase in a lifetime, after a house.  That pile of money draws all sorts of scavengers.

I’m in the “higher” “education” business, and I will swear to you on a stack of the holy text you hold most dear — yes, even a dog-eared copy of Playboy or Das Kapital — that college is the biggest scam in the history of the world.  Your professors are, in 998 cases out of 1000, creepy autistic cult-marx weirdos who have never packed the gear to serve in the real world.  At this point it’s a chicken-and-egg problem as to which came first, their cultural marxism or their creepy weird autism, but it doesn’t matter, that’s what you’re getting in every single classroom.  Yes, every single one — STEM is no refuge anymore.  The only place you can get away from the drumbeat of their silly goddamn politics is the lab, and unless you’re 100% metaphysically certain you’re going to go into a career that carved-in-stone requires some bench work, DO NOT GO TO COLLEGE.

Do not send your kids to college.  Do not let your friends and relations send their kids to college.  I’ll cut you a deal, which I promise in Obama’s America is a major bargain: Send me a check for half your kid’s prospective college’s annual tuition.  Your kid will be just as pig-ignorant of important stuff like American History and critical thinking, I promise you, and you’ll be saving 50%, plus helping ol’ Whatzerface the college president up there move into the cardboard box under a freeway overpass her real-world skills so richly merit.

And since this post is almost entirely content free, here’s a free bonus picture of Slave Leia.  What a bargain!


What Do We Have to Do?

To get on someone’s “most influential conservative blogs” list? Other than consistently deliver excellent content to more than six readers, of course. Are the Slave Girl Leia pictures not enough for you people?

(congrats to the Z Man for making the list this year. I think all Six Readers here already overlap, but just in case, check him out!!)

On Becoming a Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Jeez They’re Dumb

Remind me how we keep losing to these people?

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

The Rebel Alliance sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

star_wars_trailer3Is that what they mean by “lean in?”

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

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

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

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

Search your feelings.  You know it to be true.

Racist Racists and the Great Magic Party Switch of 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Explaining Academia: Michel Foucault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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