“Academia Discriminates Against Women”

so says some feminist professor (so says Stacy McCain).  I have a question:


No, wait, make that


That is literally the funniest thing I’ve ever heard a feminist say.

Ok, ok, if I’m being honest, it’s only the second-funniest.  The funniest thing was way back in grad school, when the chicks in our department — who were the clear majority of our department — started bitching that women didn’t have enough leadership positions.  So, as always, the PTB convened a blue-ribbon commission, staffed by these chicks themselves…

….which found out that not only did women hold the majority of leadership positions in the department, they held every single blessed one of them.  The report stated this….

….and in the very next sentence started bitching about how the disproportionate burden of occupying all these leadership roles was keeping them from pursuing their training, thus holding them back from completing their degrees.

You really can’t make this stuff up.  You really can’t.

QUILTS: Sailer’s Law

A whille back, I half-facetiously created a category called QUILTS: QUestions I’d Like To See asked.  It’s an acronym in the great tradition of the greatest secret club in the world, G.R.O.S.S.:

32a1391d1e4bef8b67bee68cb0afe242That’s the facetious part.  The half part is, I really would like to hear someone address these questions to the buffoons who control public discourse these days.  Anyway, in the spirit of jokes, truth, and shameless blog-whoring, I address QUILTS #3 to HuffPo columnette Jen Bosse, via Stacy McCain.

Every day that I go out into the world, I am forced to worry about my safety. Every day, I am ogled or honked at or loudly talked about by men from all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. I have walked through a parking lot with my children and had men three times my age undress me with their eyes. Some of you may say, “What does that even mean? That’s completely subjective.” To you, I say, “If it’s never happened to you, you’ll never know exactly what that feels like.” But I can tell you that every woman I’ve ever met has.
I have been followed. I have been harassed. I have been grabbed at and “accidentally” brushed against and was even almost abducted once. I was 10 when the harassment began. 11 when the grabbing began. 18 at the time of the attempted abduction. Followed at 23. I could go on.

McCain takes xyr more seriously than xyr deserves (by, for example, asking if it’s true she gets ogled by men from ALL socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.  Surely some ogle more than others?) But I’ve got an even more basic question for her:


No, really – that’s my question.  Bullshit.  Bull-shiggedy.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene.  Bullshite, if you wanna get cockney about it.  Bullsheeeeeeeit, as the Hon. Clay Davis might say.  I don’t believe for one second that you get ogled “every day.”  I don’t doubt it has happened — are we not men? — but every day?  This I doubt.  I doubt it here, I doubt it there, I doubt it loudly from my derriere.  I think what we have here is a blatant case of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism:

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

All this “I was ogled!” feminist humblebragging is just whistling past the twin graveyards of The Wall and menopause.  “Oh noes!  I’m still hot enough to get eye-banged by pervs!  Woe is me!”

But I have a real question for the fellas out there: Have y’all ever seen this?  I mean, ever seen it?  I don’t spend a whole lot of time hanging around construction sites and NBA shootarounds, but I have never in my life heard a woman wolf-whistled.  Have I leered at a few in my day?  Of course, and it’s one of life’s little moments of everyday humor when you catch the eye of another dude across the room who’s been been blatantly checking out the same girl…. good times (are we not men?).  But I’ve been at frat parties galore, and came up in a traditionally misogynistic industry where one of the unspoken but obvious bennies of being a supervisor was first crack at the new crop of interns… and I’ve never seen, or heard about, anything close to what this woman describes.  N.b. that the interns in our neck of the woods all wanted to be in marketing, so they were all ex-sorority sisters, average hotness 7.9 on the Prichter scale.  And yet the Jennifer Bosses and Jessica Valentis and Loryn Brantzes of the world are constantly getting fondled on the job?

What say you, gentlemen?

The Rules

The college mating game is a great illustration of Leftist ideology’s toxicity.

First: Denial of basic biological reality.  I don’t mean how profs constantly celebrate the whole panoply of deviance (though there’s plenty of that).  I mean basic, Darwin-level stuff.  “Males display, females choose” is the rule throughout the animal kingdom.  Human males, then, are just following their programming when they try to figure out what women want, in order to display it to them.

Problem is, human males are hardwired to think in straight lines and hard rules.  The easiest way to receive information from other humans is to ask for it, so that’s what most guys do.  But women don’t want what they say they want.  They’ve been trained all their lives, by the entire cultural apparatus, to say precisely the opposite of what they mean.*

Oversimplifying a bit for clarity, they say they want pajamaboys.  So guys pajamafy themselves.  When that doesn’t work, most guys assume that they’re improperly executing the program, not that the program itself is faulty.  Nate Winchester nailed it in a previous discussion:

Let’s face it, these guys are engineers! Their entire life is built on instruction and following said instructions (because failure to do so will lead to a very bad time) so it’s only natural that they engage in social interactions according to the instructions they have available.

We can swap in “all men” for “engineers,” as STEM guys have stereotypically male brains.  Rule-governed behavior makes instinctive sense to us — I’m as un-STEM as you’ll find, but I naturally grasp the point (if not necessarily all the mathematical arcana) of batting average, quarterback rating, leveling up in video games, tabletop gaming, poker… give a guy, any guy, a set of rules and an objective, and he’ll immediately sit down and start doping out strategies.

Moreover, they’ll keep following the rules well past the point of pointlessness.  Back in the days, for instance, my buddies and I used to play these tabletop strategy games based on World War II.  It was possible to win the whole war with the Axis — if you were really good, really lucky, and your opponent(s) screwed up — but individual campaigns were usually exercises in futility for one side or the other.  Germany vs. Poland, for example.  The Polish army isn’t going to beat the Wehrmacht.  “Winning,” for the Polish player, was to stave off defeat for a little longer than the real Poles did.  Talk about futile! And yet, we passed hours and hours and hours this way.

invasion-of-poland-1939-9dd5ce-h900Now… imagine what would happen if you suddenly took those rules away.  If the Poland player could simply declare, “this unit right here is Sardaukar.  And they’ve got a Voltron suit.  We’re landing in Berlin.”  Or the German player could deploy mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D. Nobody would play, right?

Such is the situation on most every college campus in America today.  What few rules there are don’t work, because they’re self-contradictory… and meanwhile the egghead brigade is constantly denouncing the very concept of rules as so much CisHetPat evil.

What’s a guy to do?  Well, read ’em and weep (trigger warning: HuffPo):

I am 22 and a pioneer in the early age of internet dating. I’ve trawled the online profiles of Lavalife over the previous weeks, occasionally setting up dates with various eligible women. I remember Katherine’s profile picture vividly: long dark hair, a mysterious Mona Lisa smirk, and the cleverness of her username: WHATSADATE. Answer, written below in first line of her dating profile: A date is a small dried fruit.

(additional trigger warning: the whole goddamn thing is in present tense, because that’s this season’s fashionable literary pretension).

A date is a small dried fruit.  There’s your first problem right there, Chief.  Take it from the old married guy, youngsters — beware the superficially clever girl.  You probably think you want a snarky, quick-witted “gamer” girl, because she’s “into” all the same stuff you’re into, which considerably simplifies the interaction process.  Wrong on all counts.  Geek girls are girls first, and — trust me — “geek” is about 257th on her priority list, even if she looks, talks, and acts like Zoe Quinn (of course, if you’re going after that particular profile, fellas, you really ought to consider the cloister).  You’re far better off going for the hottest sorority sister you can find — you’ll approach her as if she’s an extraterrestrial, which of course from your perspective she is.

Much overwrought, purple-prosed noodling follows, then:

These interactions weighed heavy on my soul. I could not make sense of them. On the one hand, each felt appropriate, life-affirming and needed. Surely these could not be considered “cheating.” What was a kiss anyway? On the other hand, such interactions were beyond the boundaries of our monogamous partnership to which Katherine and I had vowed. In my uncertainty, I waited, hoping somehow the situation would resolve itself.

Dude kisses several stereotypically granola girls at uber-SWPL events like Burning Man.  Feels guilty, because he’s “monogamous.”  And here’s the important part:

“I think we should try an open relationship.” I can’t quite believe the words are tumbling from my mouth. Within the paradigm of the dominant culture, the sanctity of monogamous marriage is supreme.

And yet I feel compelled to reconcile the deeper longings of my desire, haunted by the alternative: the vision of a pleasant but passionless coupledom, like so many marriages that choose the facade of stability instead of the fire of truth.

We’re both good little liberals.  Rules are for squares!  “The paradigm of the dominant culture” is, of course, CisHetPat.  Which is evil.  By staying monogamous, we’re perpetuating the cycle of violence.  We’re guilty guilty guilty (hooray!!!).  We can’t afford not to open up our relationship.

The dam has broken and the next few months are a blur. I begin using words like polyamorous (meaning “many loves”) and non-monogamy in conversation.

Of course you do. That’s your identity now.  If you’d had a stronger sense of self in the first place, you wouldn’t be here.

You don’t need the rest, because the obvious happens: She boffs some other guy; gets pregnant by him; Pajamaboy of course tries to do the “right” thing by being “supportive” and offering to “co-parent.”  Just as obviously, Pajamaboy is not ok with their “open” relationship; feels guilty for not being open about it; blames society and “the myth of The One” for the utterly predictable consequences of his boringly obvious choices.

The rules are for squares, right?  Riiiiight.  There’s no escaping The Rules — they’re hardwired.  Pajamaboy wasn’t rebelling against The Rules when he “decided” he wanted an open relationship; he was following them perfectly.  Guys will always follow the rules (small -r) of conduct they’ve been taught, to achieve the objective they’ve been assigned.  If the rules don’t work, or contradict themselves, a guy will do almost anything to square the circle.

The trick is to make sure that the rules of conduct we transmit to the young square with reality as much as possible.  Monogamy works for lots of reasons, and it’s a key ingredient in society’s glue (name an advanced society, for any reasonable definition of “advanced,” that is polygamous).  Now that our society has been eroded to atoms by half a century of Cultural Marxism, we’re going to have to think about how to reinstall certain basic notions like monogamy.  You’ll never convince our modern pajamaboys to embrace Christianity, so it’ll have to be by other means….

They — we — want hard-and-fast rules.  Someone’s going to give them to us.  Whoever figures that out first is going to go far…. probably much further than we’d like.  Let’s think it over before it’s too late (if it isn’t already).


*Whether or not they do this consciously is, I imagine, much debated among the more reflective PUAs.  Personally, I think “consciousness” is too broad a concept — like most human things, one-size-fits-all obscures more than it illuminates.  From what I’ve seen, women are quite capable of fervently holding two contradictory opinions simultaneously.  I think they actually believe — in their heads — that they want pajamaboys, while just as fervently knowing in their hearts that they want badboys.  If any aspiring PUAs among the Four Regular Readers wants to field test this by gaming hardcore feminists, please leave detailed reports in the comments.

Ahem, “Man” Enough

man enough for hillary

Err … no

Yeah, a whole bunch of us who are supposedly (because of our political alignment) too macho (“not man enough”, in their view) to vote for a woman voted for McCain because of Palin, in spite of our disdain McCain. So it fails in its intention right there. They’re beating a dead horse. Fighting an SJW battle that was legitimately won long ago. Just setting it up so if she loses it will be because “patriarchy”. Yawn.

Next, we’re looking at a guy with perfectly quaffed hair combined with what I believe they call “ironic facial hair” in the “lumber sexual” style, who has covered himself in tattoos … I’m guessing because he realizes he’s not “man enough” on the merits of his personality so he compensates with cliche “tough guy” visual social signals. He probably arranges flowers. (Not that there’s anything WRONG with that.)

assume genderLast, but certainly not least, we have the arrow in “Her” pointing to … er … him? In this day and age of not “assuming” anybody’s gender where it would be downright hateful and bigoted for a woman to tell him to get the hell out of the women’s room where he’s just walked in on her — probably gives us an indication on where Hillary stands on peeing (pun intended).

And we don’t even need to go to the syphilis poster connection.  Our idiocracy is certainly infected with something.

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.


One of academia’s handiest bullshit-masking tricks is question-flipping.

One of Rotten Chestnuts’ four regular readers (I think it’s Nate Winchester; please correct me if not) likes to quote Jonah Goldberg’s pithy insight that it’s not poverty that demands explanation, but wealth.  I’d like you to imagine yourself captured by an evil genie, who tells you he’s going to insert your brain into either A) a modern trailer-dweller, or B) any famous historical figure from the 19th century or earlier. Pick whomever you like — Queen Victoria, Julius Caesar, Ramses II, Genghis Khan, Cesare Borgia, Shakespeare… anyone, so long as his life ended in 1900 or before, or choose Tornado Acres Trailer Park.*

If you know anything about history, you take the trailer.  If for no other reason than trailers have aspirin, antibiotics, and air conditioning.  Those three things alone make modern life unimaginably more comfortable than even royalty experienced back in the days.  If you don’t believe me, try it — wait until a nice sultry summer’s day, then turn off the a/c and lock your medicine cabinet.  I bet you don’t make it past lunchtime.

This is a simple, obvious, irrefutable point, but as Goldberg keeps pointing out, almost nobody ever makes it, or thinks through the implications.  Politics in 21st century America assumes a baseline of material prosperity that goes well beyond the wildest dreams of science fiction from even the Fifties and Sixties.  Where on earth do we get this idea?

Part of it is simply that familiarity breeds contempt, of course, but some of it is much more insidious.  You’ve probably heard of “postcolonialism,” for instance, and even if you haven’t heard the term, you know the arguments — the Third World is so screwed up because the white man wrecked the place; anything that’s wrong with, say, Mexico is due to the “legacy of colonialism.”  It’s one of the pillars of Obama’s worldview, for instance.

Question-flipping, Goldberg-style, is the only way they can get away with this.  The obvious question should be, “well, if Whitey screwed it all up, why was life so much better when he was in charge?”  Tanzania, for instance, had a pretty good standard of living back when the Germans ran the place.  The average Indian peasant was obviously better off in the Raj’s glory days than in all but the last few years of independence.  The difference between Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is too gruesome to mention.  Ditto South Africa pre- and post-apartheid.  How many Average Joes, do you think, would happily invite Whitey back if they knew this?

The point of this exercise isn’t to show that wogs are incapable of self-governance, or some other Victorian-era bullshit.  I simply want you to see the disconnect between what reasonably informed, but non-indoctrinated, people would conclude from this set of facts, versus what the ivory tower concludes.  Because it’s obvious that Whitey wasn’t running everything out there in the colonies.  One of the most cited figures in Postcolonial Studies — and you’ll never find a more wretched hive of fact-avoidance than “___ Studies” — is that Britain ran the Raj with something like 100,000 full-time white folks…. at most.  Clearly there were a LOT of talented, dedicated, hardworking Indians making the Raj go.  Why, then, did it all go to shit in 1947?  Ditto just about any colonial possession of just about any European power — grotesqueries like Belgian Congo aside, most everywhere was run mostly by natives, most all of the time.  Where did they go?

That’s the question you’ll never see asked, because the answer is “they swallowed Leftist ideology, which is as utterly destructive of personal integrity and work ethic as it is of infrastructures and economies.”  Pick any country you like.  Tanzania elected Julius Nyerere, who is still the collectivist wet dream in many parts of academia.  He managed to ruin the economy and start a famine within a few years.  And Nyerere was just dumb and ideology-blinded; he wasn’t batshit insane like Idi Amin or Mobutu Sese Seko or Francisco Macias Nguema.

But question-flip it, and you can have a long and lucrative career flogging Whitey with 50 cent words.


*yeah, I know, Queen Victoria died in 1901.  Forget it, Hoover, he’s rolling.


“H8” and the Importance of Tautologies

Over at Morgan’s, I opined that “H8” may be the root of most, if not all, of modern society’s ills.  “H8,” of course, is that peculiarly Progressive perversion of Jesus’s command to hate the sin, but love the sinner.  According to Progressives, if you don’t love the sin, you must “hate” the sinner — if I don’t “celebrate” little Tommy’s decision to live as Ms. Phyllis Levine, showgirl extraordinaire, I’m itching to tie him to my pickup hitch and take him for a long ride down a gravel road.

Which is baloney.  I’m almost completely indifferent to Tommy.  “Mild pity” is the strongest emotion I can muster for him.  My “hate” — and it’s nearly strong enough for that word — is reserved for the notion of forcing us, with fines and jail time, to participate in Tommy’s delusion.

They are not the same.  They are, in fact, light years apart.  The only way to conflate the two is to completely lose one’s grip on tautologies.

It’s easy to do, alas.  In fact, almost any “skeptical” worldview you can name, from Diogenes the Cynic on down, rests on this kind of error.  They’ll say that we can’t know the “real” world, or “things as they are in themselves,” because our perceptions are mediated by our sense-organs and our understanding can only function in language-dependent concepts….

…which is just a fancy way of saying “we can only know what we can know.”(1)  Of course we can only see with our eyes and think with our brains.  And it’s certainly true that if our mechanism of perception were different — if we had bat sonar, say — things would appear quite different (2).  But this too is tautologous: If things were different, they wouldn’t be the same.  But that’s boring.  Isn’t it so much more fun — not to mention remunerative — to pretend that our “inability” to know “things in themselves” leads to all sorts of radical political consequences?

This “transgender” nonsense is just feminist tautology-dodging.  They will tell you that biology is meaningless when it comes to behavior.  Your private parts are the result of chromosomes, yes — not even feminists have gotten around to denying that yet — but “male” and “female,” they claim, are just “social constructions.”  Since the suite of behaviors we call “male” and “female” are largely (=entirely) culture-bound, anyone who “identifies” as a girl really is a girl, no matter what he’s packing in his pants.  And if you try to dispute that, well, we’ve seen how easy it is to get led off into the socio-philosophical weeds (very few scientists would claim that all behavior is entirely genetic…).

But “social constructions” are tautologies too.  Social things are social.  Customs are customary.

To get to “transgenderism,” you need to argue that DEscription is the same as PREscription — that by noting something is such-and-such a way, you’re asserting that it should be that way.  Which is false.  And, indeed, it’s only Progressives who argue that the way things are in The Current Year is the only way things should ever be.  For the rest of us, it’s uncontroversial, boring in fact, to note that gender roles change with circumstances.  On the football field, this is acceptable, indeed manly, behavior:

1253293349In line at the DMV, not so much.

Getting back to Tommy:  Tommy is a boy.  Tommy is not a girl.  Tommy dresses like a girl, and often behaves like a girl (3), to the point where it’s a not-unreasonable hypothesis that Tommy thinks he IS a girl.  But he’s not.  He’s a boy.  Same deal as the guy in the nuthouse who thinks he’s Napoleon (4).

Now, one can argue — and, in fact, I would argue — that Tommy deserves understanding and compassion.  I don’t hold it against him, and I wouldn’t force him into psychiatric treatment or anything like that, even if I could.  I certainly don’t “hate” Tommy.  But it is a tautology — it is true by definition — that Tommy is a boy, not a girl.

Forcing us to publicly pretend to believe otherwise is propaganda, and like all propaganda it’s designed to belittle and humiliate.  That’s where the hate — real, honest-to-God hate — comes from.  And if certain overly-excitable folks can’t distinguish between the propaganda and its subject, well, are they not following the Progressives’ lead?  They, not we, insist that tautologies aren’t tautological.  They, not we, insist that Tommy IS a girl.  Any actual hate directed at Tommy is unfair, and a tragedy….

…. and it’s entirely Progressives’ fault.



(1) I can’t recommend David Stove’s essay “Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story” enough.  He clobbers these arguments, then salts the earth behind him.  The full thing (parts I and II) are in The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies; if that’s hard to get, or you want more Stove (and you really can’t get enough), one of the parts is in Against the Idols of the Age, ed. Roger Kimball.  Read them!!!

(2) That’s the thought experiment behind a famous essay by philosopher Thomas Nagel: “What is It Like to Be a Bat?”  Here’s a summary; the essay itself can be found online in .pdf form and is well worth reading.

(3) Though not nearly as often as you’d think.  When you read up on them, a surprisingly large number of “trans” folks are attracted to the same gender they believe themselves to be.  The “queer trans_____” actually seems to be the norm, in my experience, and you haven’t truly lived until you’ve heard a very obvious dude — I’m talking 6’3″, built like a linebacker, adam’s apple the size of a softball, with five o’clock shadow you could putt on — angrily going off about how he’s really a lesbian.  And no, he absolutely was NOT kidding.  I felt like I was on mescaline.

(4) The most fascinatingly quixotic book I’ve ever read, Julian Jaynes’s The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, uses these types of delusions as evidence.  A psychiatrist, Jaynes claims that folks who think they’re Napoleon exhibit the same inability to individuate that pre-conscious peoples do.  If you put two guys who think they’re Napoleon in a room together, the result is…. complete agreement.  They both agree that the other guy is also Napoleon. They somehow don’t process the idea that two people can’t be the same guy at the same time.  It would be fascinating to learn if “transsexuals” really believe that other transsexuals are the gender they claim.  Alas, that would imply (as I have implied throughout) that “transgenderism” is a mental illness, and that simply won’t do.

Sorry, I just gotta

Apparently Kurt Russell was interviewed by someone (somebody named “Wells”) about “feelings” about guns and Quentin Tarantino.

I do love Kurt’s awesome response, and by that I mean the way he handled the whole interview.  Let it be a lesson to us on how to handle these people.  With ridicule and WTF’s.

But what really got me was this mealy-mouthed, condescending, idiot Wells and some of the absolute crappety crap he spewed from his mouth.

“I’m not talking about politics …” the hell you aren’t! Next sentence he brings up “the gun culture” which is a political construct of the left. To the extent that there is any “gun culture”, the one that’s acting out what he’s talking about is gang culture and jihadis, and the one that is actually real “gun culture” as in your average NRA type … they’re not the ones springing “sudden violence” on people.

Russell: Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can’t?

Wells: No, not so you can’t, just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.

But according to people like Wells, the “idiots” are the people who want guns to protect themselves, let’s be honest here. “We all know that right now, guns is a trope, I mean it’s not a trope it’s a totem, it’s a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need, it makes them feel good because they’re being surrounded …” — the contempt dripping from his mouth couldn’t me more clear.  And Kurt cuts him off right there.

Russell: You really believe they’re not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God! You and I just disagree.”


You want freedom, Mr. Mealy-mouthed liberal? You can’t HANDLE freedom. Go back to your “safe space” where Hans talks Greedo out of shooting altogether by understanding his pain and negotiating an agreement. Jeez!

The Top Three Signs You Might be a Secret Leftist

Over at House of Eratosthenes, we’re having a discussion about the nature and history of Our Betters, the Liberals.  While I think Morgan and I have reached broad agreement, there are a few things that still need clarification.  And since I’ve always wanted to write one of those Gawker-style clickbait lists, I hereby present

The Top Three Signs You Might be a Secret Leftist:

  1. You think the world is perfectible.

At some point in that discussion thread, we got to talking about Mighty Pharaoh.  Was he a leftist?  Certainly a guy like Ramses exercized total power, but was he a totalitarian?  I say no, because the totalitarian credo — “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” — claims that “the State” can be completely self-sufficient.

That’s not true, and even Ramses, who was raised to believe he was literally a god, knew it.  His main job as Pharaoh was to perform the rituals that kept the Nile flooding regularly.  It didn’t always work, and when the Nile failed to flood, Ramses didn’t send out the propaganda corps to proclaim that the Nile did flood, damn it.  Nor did he send out the secret police to arrest anyone who contradicted the propaganda.  God or not, he accepted some basic limitations on his power.

Leftists don’t do that.  They think there’s nothing their dogma can’t fix.  Take Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein.  Widely regarded as an allegory of the French Revolution, Frankenstein captures the boundless hubris of the Enlightenment — our understanding of Nature is so vast that soon we shall conquer death itself.  Rousseau, Robespierre, and especially their ape, Karl Marx — born just 3 years after Waterloo — promised utopia through political action.

Our modern Leftists are even more extravagant.  Marx only promised paradise to humans.  Just seven years ago, Leftists told us that the Earth itself would heal if only we voted for a half-term junior senator from flyover country.  And as for natures’s remaining imperfections, well, they can simply be legislated out of existence.  George W. Bush isn’t widely regarded as a Leftist, but he overturned one of the fundamental truths of mathematics by decreeing that, with No Child Left Behind, all students shall now be above average.  In much the same way, Our Betters have abolished biology — women have dicks now, and only skin color is heritable…. sorta.donezal

2. You never trust your own lying eyes.

Because if you do, you risk breaking one of the newly minted laws of nature.  Imagine you’re a woman in the restroom with the “Ladies” sign on it.  In walks a 6’2″, well-built former Olympic track star, who whips out his cock in front of the nearest toilet.  Are you going to shriek, then call the cops?  You’d better not, if you’re a Leftist!  Gender is just a social construction, my friend, and dicks and/or balls can be constructed female, too.

So, too, with math.  If George W. Bush could mandate that all children are better than average, it’s child’s play for Barack Obama to add a gazillion-dollar socialized medicine program that will lower taxes and reduce costs.

And above all, you must never, ever follow up on anything, ever.  If you looked at the initiatives of LBJ’s “Great Society,” for example — the War on Poverty and whatnot — it’d sure look like they not only didn’t solve the problems they were supposed to, but they actually made them much, much, much worse.  If you actually interacted with some immigrants, it would appear that Magic Dirt Theory is false, and that a change of latitude doesn’t automatically transform a 70-IQ socialism-worshiping Mestizo subsistence farmer into a Jeffersonian yeoman computer programmer.  You’d notice that, contrary to all your end of the world models, the globe hasn’t warmed at all, the polar ice caps are thicker, and polar bears are thriving.  Not that those things are true, of course — only the words of humanities professors and Democrat politicians are true — but they sure look true, and that causes feelbad.  Never, ever trust your lying eyes.

3. You claim unlimited dictatorial powers for yourself, because you’re the victim of everything.

This last is the hardest for normals to grasp, and getting it is the surest sign you’re a secret Leftist.  Leftists believe that oppression confers moral authority, and moral authority, political authority.  By the transitive property of equality, then, the guy who suffers most at the hands of others wields the most political power.  This is why that Melissa Click idiot at at the University of Missouri can whine about how oppressed she is even as she’s demanding — and receiving! — the services of “muscle” to remove onerous persons from her royal presence.  It’s why feminists who — according to their own theory — should be barefoot, pregnant, and silent in a kitchen somewhere have arrogated to themselves the unlimited right to tell you what to say, hear, do, and think.  It’s why the lily-white Rachel Dolezals of the world are so anxious to pass themselves off as black, even as they scream about how oppressively, unrelentingly awful it is to be black in AmeriKKKa.  It’s why Hillary Clinton is still the odds-on favorite to ride her doddering nincompoop act into the White House in 2016.  Not a day goes by without some awful meanie saying something hurtful about her; that means she deserves the nuclear launch codes.

If any of these three apply to you, please seek help immediately.

Cognitive Dissonance — NOT BS

Comrade Cognitive Dissonance Czar, I surrender — the field is yours.

What convinced me?  This bookCogs in the Wheel: The Formation of Soviet Man,
by Mikhail Heller.  The author grew up in Russia and, after escaping, became a Sovietologist at the Sorbonne.  He wrote this in 1987.

Heller shows, in excruciating detail, the methods the Kommisars used to forge the New Soviet Man.  I want to highlight two things:

The importance of “dialectic.”  I knew about dialectic, of course, since it’s fundamental to Marx’s thought.  Problem is, “dialectical materialism” is so obviously false that it’s impossible for rational people to take it seriously.  It’s just Hegel’s “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” junk, gussied up with some squid ink about Historical Inevitability.  It’s no more scientific than Global Warming, though Marx, like all leftists, loved to pretend he was science’s BFF.*  History, of course, is not a science, and a guy with Marx’s record on predictions would be laughed off the pages of the National Inquirer.  Reasonable folks know it’s all bunk, stem to stern.

But who’s dumber, them or me?  I assumed that leftists are rational, despite several lifetimes’ worth of evidence to the contrary.  They really do believe there’s no such thing as a contradiction.  The Law of the Excluded Middle means nothing to a Hegelian — apparent contradictions are just the World Spirit working itself out.**  Thus, propositions can be both true and false at the same time, and none of their obviously incoherent and self-contradictory beliefs conflict, because the phrase “self-contradictory” is meaningless.

Deliberate infantilization.  You know who else has no problem with the principle of non-contradiction?  Children.  Kids believe seventeen obviously impossible things every morning before breakfast.  The Soviets knew this.  One of their main cultural goals, then, was to maintain a child’s mentality in the population.  Deliberate, systematic fear was Communist policy from the very start, and Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, et al made no secret of it.  Tie that to the magic word “dialectic,” and soon the people learn, Pavlov-style, to parrot — and, eventually, believe — the Party line, even if today’s Party line is 180 degrees away from yesterday’s.  The Nazis are our mortal enemies.  The Nazis are our allies.  Ooops, now they’re our enemies again.  Failure to shift with the wind means you and your whole family are headed to Siberia, so you shift — dialectically.

Heller illustrates this with a horrifying anecdote from Soviet literature.***  The protagonist of a play called The Suicide declares himself “the only Russian completely free of fear” because he’s going to commit suicide at noon tomorrow.  So, out of all possible alternatives, what does he do with his freedom?  He calls a random number at the Kremlin, and tells whoever picks up the phone that he’s read Marx, and doesn’t like it.

It’s worth reading for that alone.  But it’s fascinating to see just how close our Social Justice Warriors have come to turning themselves into New Soviet Men.

There’s the same disdain for manual labor.  You’d think it odd, what with the whole “proletariat” thing, but the USSR quickly devolved into Faculty Lounge Nation — shoddy work, of the kind that would get a real prole shipped off to Siberia, was tolerated from those who were unquestionably loyal to the Party.  Indeed, ideological purity came first, technical competence a distant second — the Soviets would routinely throw armies of illiterate peasants into “the battle for industrialization,” forcing them to build factories with zero training (Mao had an even more lunatic plan in the Great Leap Forward, forcing every collective farm to build smelters and produce steel on their non-agricultural hours).  Being a “brain worker” was nearly synonymous with political influence in the USSR, and “brain work” jobs were awarded based on loyalty — such that even the factory designers often had no idea what they were doing.

There’s the same paranoia, and the same hate.  Indeed, Soviets were taught that they were constantly under siege, and that hating their besiegers was a mark of virtue — the greater the hate, the purer the soul.  The same hypervigilance for any deviation — Stalin said, more than once, that even the best workers might be secret “wreckers,” because wreckers needed to look like good workers in order to sabotage socialism more effectively.  And, of course, the same antisemitism — the phrase “Zionism is racism,” which is the UN’s official position on the matter, came from the USSR.

And, of course, there’s the same refusal to bow to reality, with the same horrifying results.  A Soviet investigative journalist (I honestly had no idea there was such a thing) took it upon himself to find out why the food in a particular town’s one cafeteria was so relentlessly awful.  It turns out that this cafeteria needed to hit a “waste food” target to meet its numbers in the glorious Five Year Plan.  The Planners were convinced that some losses were inevitable in any cafeteria, and so they set an amount of “waste food” to be collected and redistributed as animal feed.  When the cafeteria served appetizing grub, they weren’t getting enough “waste.”  So, since they’d meet the “plates of food distributed” target no matter what they handed out, they served up the most wretched glop they could — the workers refused to eat it, and hey presto, waste food target fulfilled.

One could go on and on.  Heller’s prose isn’t the sharpest — he’s an academic, and this is in translation — but it’s a riveting read nonetheless.  And it’s a fine piece of writing that can change a guy’s mind on so large a topic as cognitive dissonance.  Check it out — Amazon says you can get a used one for a penny.  Just exercise caution; you don’t want to end up on a government list for knowing something you shouldn’t about their future plans.



*For those who know me as the “it all comes back to Marx” guy over at House of Eratosthenes… are y’all starting to see that it really does all come back to Marx?  He was the first to “fucking love science,” and the left have been beating that horse ever since.

**Yes, Hegel really does believe this.  Read any short summary of his thought.  You’ll have to translate it into plain English — nobody wants to believe that so many Very Smart Philosophers with PhDs have been taken in by such a shitty con — but when you do, you’ll see it plain as day.

***Too bad this stuff isn’t available in translation.  It’d be nice to see what Our Betters, the Liberals, have in store for us.