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.

Thanksgiving Chestnuts

As everybody knows, on this date back in 1620, evil white genocidal gun-toting religious fanatics tricked the noble Native Americans into teaching them how to grow corn, which in their language was called “maize.” Soon all the noble Native Americans died from smallpox-infected blankets. And patriarchy. Also global warming.

So have a good one, fellow Deplorables. Oppress a LGBTQ family member, grab a pussy, be sure not to use any parts of the buffalo, and make America great again. Heil Hitler.*

*this post brought to you straight from the brain of every obnoxious freshperson just home from their $50K/year “safe space,” formerly known as a “college.” It does not reflect the opinions of the writer, the management, WordPress, the Republican Party, the designated hitter, or any of their heirs, assigns, or pets.**

**No, really — have a great one, y’all. I’m off to watch football and test the human stomach’s maximum elasticity.

Time Doesn’t Exist – and other Sophist nonsense

So I sawtime this on Facebook.

It’s very deep, of course.

The argument goes like this:  Time doesn’t exist because the units we use to measure it can’t be found in nature. (They can, actually, we may get to that later).

But of course, this is absurd.  The same logic could be used to argue that distance doesn’t exist because centimeters are a social construct, or that mass doesn’t exist because grams are a social construct.

The fact that 3:02 PM on a Tuesday is just a social construct doesn’t mean that time doesn’t exist.  This is an important distinction.  Failing to make the distinction leads to all sorts of logical folly.

In a conversation with Severian a while back, we noted that sophists started this whole deal (or more accurately, perhaps, popularized and formalized it) where we confuse the words we use for things for the things themselves.

I commented on the photo, basically saying what I just wrote above, adding “trust me, time exists.”

To which my friend replied, “we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.”

Now I know he’s intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying and just wasn’t following at the time and was not interested in trying, so I just dropped it.  But it was clear he was stuck on the language of the photo posted and saw what the truth in it is — and went with the conclusion.  I wasn’t arguing the facts stated in the post.  I was arguing with the two conclusions, that 1) Time doesn’t exist, and 2) that time as a social construct makes us slaves to it.  Time, that is.  The thing that doesn’t exist.

My immediate thought was “we’ll have to agree to disagree”.  By “we’ll” I assume he means “we will”, which means starting at some point in time and going forward.  In time.  Which doesn’t exist.

If time doesn’t exist, then not only is there no future, there is no now.  And if there is no “now”, there is no “is”.  So I, who apparently do not exist in the first place, just “proved” that nothing exists.  Which is a tall order if you parse that sentence at all.

I recall a story from Zen Buddhism that basically went like so:

The master asks the student some koan (I forget what it was), and days later the student comes back and proudly answers that nothing exists.  The master then slaps him across the face and asks, “then what was that?”

Confusing language for reality gets us in a lot of trouble, quickly, especially when we start substituting reality for language — which is the direct opposite of what language does.  Reality is reality, language is the abstract.  It doesn’t mean reality is abstract.

It gets us into lots of trouble in all sorts of subject areas.  And politicians, the main consumers of sophistry, use this to great advantage, every day.

As far as the “slave” thing goes … the social construct of 3:02 PM on a Tuesday was created so we, who are by nature social beasts, can better cooperate with each other. If anything, we are slaves to our nature.  But that should come as no surprise.  Everything is.

More specifically, we are really slaves to agreements – but agreements are necessary for social behavior whether it’s “you must do this by such and such time or I will have you flogged” or “if you do this by such and such time I will pay you … something.”  The nature of the first “agreement”, of course, is coercive and immoral.

But if time doesn’t exist, then morality certainly doesn’t exist.  We can find no physical evidence of it in nature, right?  So who cares?  I digress.

The same thing is being done with gender right now.  In nature, humans are male or female (there are a few biological aberrations, but everyone by and large is one or the other).  Now, there are certain personality traits we associate more with one gender or another, and we have taken to some standardized ways of expressing ourselves accordingly.

But what have our modern sophists done?  They have taken these expressions, this “language”, and substituted them back into the reality of gender, claiming that gender is just a social construct.  But no, it is the expressions that are social constructs.  Gender remains what it always has been.  But the sophists insist that it is not.

What this boils down to is a war on society.  The assumption is that social constructs are arbitrary and therefore worthless.

But “worth” is also a social construct.

So I guess I can officially opt out of this conversation.

*note: 3:02 PM on a Tuesday does, in fact, exist.  It just had no name.  The name is an abstract.  The point in time is a reality.

The Majesty of Royalty

Nicholas II, Charles I, Louis XVI… pick your deposed monarch. If you look at history with a jaundiced eye, you have to wonder: how did ANY of these guys survive as long as they did?

When asked “why was so-and-so deposed?,” different groups give different answers. Historians start looking for “root causes” — Charles I didn’t accept the new commercial ethos of the Puritan middle class; Nicholas II tried to rule as an autocrat through an all-but-medieval bureaucracy, etc. History Channel specials focus on personalities — that Richard III sure was a bastard, wasn’t he?

But forget about all that for a sec, and just focus on the situation. People actually fought for these guys, even though slitting, say, Henry VI’s throat would’ve been the easiest thing in the world. The lords who did all these loons’ heavy lifting on the battlefield could’ve crowned themselves king with — at worst — no more of a fight than the civil war they were already fighting on behalf of their drooling halfwit king. Why didn’t they?

It’s the culture, stupid. Think of English Bob’s “why not shoot a President?” speech in that great old Western Unforgiven: “At the mere sight of royalty, one’s hand would shake as if palsied!” One doesn’t kill a king because…. one doesn’t kill a king, even if that means meekly going to the chopping block or into exile like so many Howards before.

Your rebel lord, in other words, is just some guy. The peasants may hold him in awe, but his fellow aristocrats don’t — peers maneuvering to ruin each other was the national sport of every court in the Middle Ages, in their brief breaks between trying to kill each other on the battlefield. Very few kings got shanked, even when it was in everyone’s obvious best interest (e.g. the Hundred Years’ War, which would’ve been about 75 years shorter if someone had just slipped Jean II some tainted snails).

This is a lesson our wannabe-aristocrats in the political elite should ponder. As the Z Man points out re: Hillary Clinton, she’s not in it for the ego-stroke; she’s in it for the money. But the Clintons are arrivistes, the 21st century equivalent of hustling rubes from the sticks who bought their patents of nobility from an addled old monarch who found them almost as useful as they were amusing. While being a titled court jester suits Bill just fine — he’s a poonhound who only cares about droit de siegneur — Hillary’s got a hole in her soul that no amount of money will ever fill. She certainly thinks she’s in it for the money, as she has understandably confused money with security and above all prestige… but she’s wrong, as she will find out to her great dismay should she win the Presidency. Even if the King is a drooling halfwit, he’s still the King, and she’s not, and never will be. We can only hope she doesn’t set the world ablaze trying to avoid that lesson.

Or the related lesson, which is that once the Majesty of Royalty is revealed to be a “social construction” — ponder that deliciously postmodern phrase for a sec — deposing monarchs gets to be something of a habit. Look at all those Roman emperors who barely had time to slip on the purple toga before getting shanked by their Praetorian guard. Wilhelm II was ousted in favor of some lawyers; a grubby bald professor-wannabe had the last Czar killed almost as an afterthought; El Sleazo Caudillo del Momento always gets it from some playboy junior officer who can barely zip his own pants.

Legitimacy is built on symbols. The process takes decades, if not centuries. But it’s gone in an instant.

“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 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.