SNUL: There’s a Little Weinstein in All of Us

I commend two pieces to your attention: Agnostic on the outrage (or lack thereof) over Democrats’ victims, and Porter on Liberal passcodes.  Both are worth reading, as are both those sites in general, but they’ll get you fired if you’re caught reading them at work, so be careful.  They’re hateful.  So, so hateful.

Synthesizing the two, I conclude that there’s a little Harvey Weinstein in all of us.  I mean that in both the ethical and physical senses.

The reason there’s not more outrage over Weinstein isn’t that he’s a Leftist, and his fellow Leftists in the Media, Academia, and Politics (henceforth: The Cathedral) are all covering for him.  They are, of course — cf. Our Betters’ Betters, the Europeans, rallying around Weinstein, and have you noticed that everyone else who has gotten fired is a minor-league nobody, or someone already almost put out to pasture?  But that’s not the real reason there’s little outrage compared to the magnitude of the crimes alleged.

Rather, it’s that “everybody does it.”

There’s a reason vaudeville performers used to be considered just a very small step up from actual prostitutes.  The “casting couch” has been a joke since the Restoration; it used to be taken for granted that anyone who appeared in a movie, male or female, got their role via horizontal audition.  Even now, most folks’ reaction to the Weinstein revelations wasn’t outrage, but bewilderment — why did he feel he had to coerce anyone?

Leftism in general works like this.  If you want a ticket to the good life, as Porter notes, you need to let well-connected Liberals have their way with you.  Especially if you’re a non-STEM smart guy.  All the institutions where you can get the cushy life you want — media, academia, politics — are controlled by Liberals; you have to mouth their platitudes if you want in, and you’d better fake a mean orgasm, too.

Time was, you could let the mask slip a little bit once you were in.  Before the Borg took over completely (that is, before the mid-1990s or so), the Elite used to have a little bit of a sense of humor about it — professors, for instance, would joke that the nicest car in the faculty lot always belonged to the wildest-eyed Communist.  But now the Cult has entered its death spiral phase, and facts don’t compute — the Diversoids literally can’t see that their faculty lounges, editorial boards, and gated communities are as mayo-on-Wonderbread white as they can possibly make them.  Even if you’re a STEM smart guy, you’re required to at least keep your mouth shut.

Do you live a nice middle class life?  Do you have a college degree?  You’ve bent over for a Harvey Weinstein.  Maybe just the once, for the grade you just had to have to pass that one required class, but… you did it.  So did I.  Theodore Dalrymple sums it up:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

TORA! TORA! TORA!

Discussing some stuff with e-migos, I got to thinking about those deeply nuanced freethinkers: Our Betters, the Liberals.  Anyone who pays attention to what Liberals do, rather than what they say, knows that Liberals are the most binary critters in captivity.  They behave as if every question that could ever possibly be asked has The One Right Answer (TORA), and of course they — being Our Betters — know it.

This explains most, if not all, of their most annoying tics.  For instance, they instinctively politicize every-fucking-thing…. and yet, seem clueless as to how this “politics” stuff actually works.  E-migo Morgan cited their recent blather about how Congress “hasn’t done anything” about gun control after the Las Vegas tragedy.  He pointed out that yes, Congress has done something about gun control; lots of somethings, in fact.  It just didn’t turn out the way Our Betters wanted it to.  They proposed a bill, they couldn’t get the votes to pass it, it was defeated.

That’s what Congress does.  That’s the only thing Congress does.  “Voting on bills” is literally the only action that Congress, as a whole, can Constitutionally take.  To those of us who use Earth-logic, that’s what “politics” means — you make your best case, you call in all your favors, you make all the deals you can, and when it still doesn’t work, you accept the result and move on.  Hell, even Hillary Clinton pretended to subscribe to this definition back when she thought she was going to win. Of course, that didn’t work out the way Our Betters thought it would, either, and so she changed her tune…

See what I mean?  Our Betters don’t really “get” politics, because when every possible question has The One Right Answer, what’s the point?  Politics is the adjudication of competing preferences.  But with TORA there is, by definition, no competition, because there are no preferences.  How could there be, since it’s unpossible that someone might actually prefer the wrong answer?  It’s the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism at the ballot box — if you were smart enough to understand what Lefty is trying to tell you, you’d have to agree with him, because he’s telling you The One Right Answer.

And If you’re too stupid to get that, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway…. which is why Our Betters don’t really “get” democracy, either.  Oh, they’ll be happy to “explain” TORA to you until they’re blue in the face (“explaining” things to Dirt People gets them wet), but when it comes down to it, it doesn’t really matter if one million people vote for TORA, or nine weirdos in black bathrobes do, or just one Lightworker does — it is, after all, The One Right Answer, and those who know TORA are duty-bound to implement it, though the heavens fall.

tora

The Psuedo-Intellectual Myopia of a Trump-Derangement-Syndrome Victim

Our friend and co-blogger Morgan threw out a Matt Walsh quote,

“Tolerance is not a virtue. Diversity is not a goal.”

This makes lefties’ heads explode.

Morgan went on to bring up Chesterton’s Fence, which he instructed us to read up on Ace’s blog.

Left leaning dude chimes in that Morgan must be using Chesterton’s fence to defend Trump’s fence.

Swing and a miss, strike one!  and boy we could feel the breeze from that one in the upper deck behind the third base line.

He said he was struggling with its relevance to … I guess the Matt Walsh quote.

This got me to thinking, and I posted a response that I am posting here … mainly because I think it’s a train of thought worth posting.  So here it is:

If you’re looking for something that has something to do with Trump’s fence, which does not exist, then I would suggest you take a few steps back and shake off your myopia. You are looking too closely.

It has much more to do with the Michael Walsh quote Morgan posted.

I will risk trying to spell something out to somebody who either can’t or won’t see it …

Chesterton’s fence has nothing to do with damned fence. This is a thought exercise where the fence is merely a placeholder. Chesterton’s fence is something that exists that someone who doesn’t know why it exists and doesn’t like it wants to get rid of.

If you don’t know why something that somebody built exists, you MIGHT want to ponder why that somebody or those sombodies built it in the first place in the course of assessing its value.

Of course, when a modern progressive sees a post that questions diversity as a sacred value, they immediately see racists — because that’s what they’ve been taught to see by their clergy.

In this case, the thing that exists is intolerance. Why is there intolerance? What purpose does it serve? If you haven’t thought about this, you have no business instructing us not to tolerate intolerance.   (Never mind that it’s fundamentally hypocritical – an that’s also a clue that might actually get you to start thinking about the purpose it serves).

Diversity is such a catch phrase. If you haven’t considered why every culture has a characteristic realm of relative homogeneity, you don’t understand culture. So you certainly don’t understand its value. And you don’t understand that the whole concept of a “multiculture” is an oxymoron.

Diversity of race is a symptom of a great culture. It is not a cause. Further, the left has conflated (ironically) race with culture, and insist that particular cultures are inherent in particular races, and to reject elements of such a culture is to reject the race. This is an extremely racist worldview. It is dangerous. It is destructive.

Which is why the left embraces it. Postmodernism is about deconstruction, which is a method of destruction. It seeks to destroy what has been built, for it does not see the utility of what has been built. It employs diversion and obfuscation to direct hate at order. “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go!” You can get hundreds or thousands chanting that in a couple of minutes at ANY big leftist rally. They have been taught that mindless destruction is a virtue — and they don’t even realize that is at the core of their worldview.

This is key to fomenting revolution, which is ultimately what the bigwigs behind the left want.

They lemmings don’t learn. They ended up with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Guevara, Moussilini, Castro, Pol Pot and the like.

Do not destroy what you do not understand. The minions do not understand what it is they are helping destroy. The leaders do … in the case of western civilization, they are destroying obstacles to absolute power for themselves.

Today’s SJW is Tomorrow’s Obergruppenfuhrer

or why nothing is anybody’s fault, part III.

As Marxism is Calvinism minus God, so modern “social justice” ideology is Marxism minus Marx.

Calvinism’s two fundamental tenets are:

  1. mankind’s total depravity, and
  2. predestination

Only a tiny fraction of mankind is destined to be Saved; you’ll know you’re one of them if you hate the rest of humanity almost as much as you hate yourself.  Since this is not a psychologically sustainable creed, even for such world-class haters as the Puritans, in practice Calvinism was endless, frantic displacement activity – the famous “Protestant work ethic.”  Drop God, and Puritans become Yankees — dour, hectoring pharisees who call you a whore while they’re fucking you over to make a few bucks.

Marxism’s two fundamental tenets are exactly the same.  Social classes, not God, do the predestining and the hatred gets called “revolutionary consciousness,” but it’s the same thing, with the same result — read any academic Marxist work and try to stay awake through the endless theoretical discussions of A’s version of B’s critique of C’s revision of D’s misunderstanding of the relationship between base and superstructure….

Just as 18th century science killed Calvin’s God, so 20th century history killed Marx’s.  Marx’s nonsense “economics” and sub-Hegelian worship of History are so laughably wrong that hardly anyone without a second PhD can mention them with a straight face.  Drop Marx, and Marxists become Social Justice Warriors — people who know xzhemselves to be on the right side of History, despite also knowing that there are no facts, only discourses.  They become, in effect, nothing but power worshipers.

And that’s where it gets interesting.  Marx’s disciples, e.g. Lenin, were power worshipers too, but they at least had the excuse (if that’s the word) of thinking they’d tapped into a real, existing power — the irresistible Force of History — in the same way the Puritans knew they were Saved.  SJWs know there’s no History; History is, after all, the narrative unfolding of Truth.  There are no facts, only discourses; and hence no Truth, only the provisional “truths” of whatever temporary coalition has the power to enforce them.

These days, of course, the SJWs still believe themselves to be that coalition.  BUT: it doesn’t have to be that way, as they know best of all (not consciously, of course, but in their secret hearts).  How could it be otherwise?  Hence the ongoing apocalyptic freakout over the rise of Donald Trump.  Trump uses language better than they do — Hillary’s campaign, it’s becoming clear, was over from the moment he uttered his famous “because you’d be in jail” quip.  Trump’s coalition might well twist language in such a way that his discourse prevails.

At that point, they’d be consistent with their philosophy — Trump’s discourse triumphed; therefore Trump’s discourse is right.  And so they’ll do what they always do, jump out in front of the parade and pretend to lead it by being More Radical Than Thou.  And so today’s blue-haired bicurious vegan slam poet is tomorrow obergruppenfuhrer.  I give it maybe three more years before they start trading in their pink pussy hats for red and black armbands.

Nazis, Weathermen, Millennials

We all know how Our Betters, the Liberals, like to throw the word “Nazi” around.

  • The Nazis were racists and nationalists;
  • racism is bad;
  • nationalism is “right wing;”
  • therefore “nationalist” means “racist” means “right winger;”
  • therefore anyone who disagrees with a Liberal is bad
  • because Nazi
  • QED.

That doesn’t mean the Nazis aren’t worth studying, though.

GERyouth4
In reality, Nazism was a utopian revolutionary movement like any other.  The only difference was the details, which cynics on both sides acknowledged — Goebbels bragged he could turn a Red into a Nazi in two weeks; the German Communist Party recruited heavily among Nazi Brownshirts.  Let’s leave the details aside, then, and focus on the process.

The names everyone recognizes — Hitler, Goebbels, Goering — were anomalies.  Great War veterans(1), they were middle-aged when the Nazis seized power in 1933.  Their time on the Western Front defined their lives — Hitler’s military decisions, for example, don’t make sense outside the context  of trench warfare.  But the men who actually carried out the prototypically Nazi stuff — the SS, the Einsatzkommandos, the Gestapo — were younger.  Their defining life experience wasn’t the War, though they were fully aware of it.  The “War Youth” generation was defined by defeat, the stab in the back, the missed opportunity to prove themselves worthy of their Fatherland.

This is important: They spent their entire adolescence preparing for war, physically, mentally, and emotionally.  They longed to test their mettle in the crucible of combat like their fathers, brothers, and older schoolmates did…. but they didn’t get the chance to.

So they turned to radical politics.

As “everyone knows,” the guys who joined the SS(2) were mindless thugs, sadists, failures like Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann, wannabe-farmers who (in Eichmann’s case) actually scratched out a living raising chickens for a while after the war.   As with pretty much everything “everyone knows,” this is false.  SS officers were largely college-educated; many had real degrees in real subjects; quite a few of them considered themselves intellectuals and, of those, quite a few actually were.  They preached, and practiced, a radical ideology they learned in college — a distinctive, instantly recognizable weltanschaaung that guided their actions.

Again, this is important: They learned this stuff in college.  They were Nazis long before the war, and their actions during the war were logical, though horrifying, consequences of their ideology.  The war didn’t turn them into fanatical killers, their ideology did.  The war, especially the brutality of the Eastern Front — which they all regarded as an existential struggle against Bolshevism — provided them with the means and opportunity to put their motives into practice.  Had Germany not gone to war, or had the war gone differently, these guys still would’ve been fanatical, murderous Nazis… except instead of leading “special actions” in Russia, they’d be teaching college seminars.(3)

I’m pretty sure the Six Regular Readers see where I’m going with this but for everyone else, let’s talk about the Sixties.

trep_0001_0001_0_img0018-T2

That’s Bernardine Dohrn, the driving force behind Weatherman, the most violent radical group in the 1970s.(4)  For those who haven’t heard of Dohrn, Barack Obama’s best bud Bill Ayers, and the rest, Weatherman, like every other white radical outfit in the Sixties and Seventies, was a movement by, for, and about the frustrations of over-privileged college kids.  Their membership was invariably middle- to upper-middle class: Dohrn grew up in an upper-middle-class suburb of Milwaukee and was a law student; Ayers’s father was the CEO of ConEd energy in Chicago; Mark Rudd and John “J.J.” Jacobs were undergrads at Columbia.  And they all wanted to be black — “I think in our hearts what all of us wanted to be was a Black Panther,” a former (female, natch) leader proclaimed, and none of the black groups who terrified California in the early 70s would’v gotten anywhere without the white, female attorneys who helped them… and, of course, slept with them.

Reading about Weatherman and the rest, then — Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage is a good start — one gets the overwhelming impression of solipsistic kids overdosing on white guilt and boredom.

The parallels are obvious if you choose to see them.  Where the German “War Youth” were radicalized by defeat, the Americans were done in by victory.  Their fathers defeated Hitler, then and now the evilest human being that could ever be.  What could possibly compete with that?  They’d never be tested in battle.  They’d never endure the hardships of the Great Depression.  The only foreign evil on offer was Communism, whose JV squad was slapping their generational cohorts around and whose Varsity was armed with ICBMs.  A hot war with Ivan would be over in twenty minutes.

If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.  Like the SS intellectuals, the Radical intellectuals of the 1960s were convinced that utopia was within reach, if only we had the steel to reach out and take it.  Their idols — Che Guevara, Regis Debray, Carlos Marighella, Lenin, Mao — taught that a dedicated cadre of professional revolutionaries could lead the masses to victory.  The only requirements were iron will, utter ruthlessness, and total rejection of conventional morality.  The American version played out like a caricature of modern SJW hyperventilating — in their total rejection of “the System,” Weatherman leaders decided to “smash monogamy” by ordering all revolutionary couples to break up; when that wasn’t enough they moved on to mandatory orgies, and when that proved insufficient, to compulsory homosexuality (somehow Dohrn herself always seemed to miss out on the action).  It would almost be funny if not for the bombs, but these people were serious:

We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us. We however do not have the right to enrich ourselves with even one fur, with one Mark, with one cigarette, with one watch, with anything. That we do not have. Because we don’t want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated. I will never see it happen that even one bit of putrefaction comes in contact with us, or takes root in us. On the contrary, where it might try to take root, we will burn it out together. But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character.

That’s Heinrich Himmler addressing a group of SS officers, not Bill Ayers addressing the Weathermen, but change the “bacillus” from “Jews” to “capitalism” and he’d agree with every word.

Which brings us to the Millennials.

2015-08-04-1438723390-8535074-Cover_YoungHipsterGL

Once again, we see an entire generation of over-educated youngsters who feel they’ve missed an opportunity — really, the opportunity — to test their mettle.  The wandervogel who were radicalized into the SS in college missed the First World War, the Weathermen missed the Second, and the Millennials missed everything.(5)  And unlike the Sixties, money can’t paper this over — when The Simpsons joked about Homer’s hippy-dippy mom “marketing Jerry Rubin’s line of diet shakes, proofreading Bobby Seale’s cookbook, and running credit checks at Tom Hayden’s Porsche dealership,” it wasn’t really a joke.  Hayden never owned a Porsche dealership (Wiki prissily informs us), but the rest of the Sixties bomb-throwing crew did just fine — ask Bill Ayers, emeritus professor of education at Northwestern, or Bernardine Dohrn, law professor at same. Mark Rudd was a college prof, too, and so is Tom Hayden, who was also married to Jane Fonda back when she was still hot.

The rest of the Sixties flower children became hedge fund managers.  Their grandkids can barely get jobs at Starbucks.  And — this is the important part — radical politics are dead, too, at least as we’re used to understanding them.  The Weathermen were stupid, grandiose, murderous clowns, but at least the racism they decried (in between the mandatory homosexual orgies, anyway) was a real evil.  Millennials are stuck picketing department stores so that 6-2 dudes in dresses can make wee-wee in the little girls’ room.

So what’s left for them?  As Matt Forney (a Millennial himself) points out, they’re turning en masse to a new kind of radical politics — the shitlord kind.

Millennials came of age in a world where the entire establishment, from the politicians down to the flesh-puppets of Hollywood, were complete and total jokes. No shock that we want to crash it with no survivors. Donald Trump is the avatar of our rage: while not a millennial himself, his ideas and attitude make the overly comfortable chattering classes collectively brown their pantaloons. Because we have no memory of the leftist upheavals of the sixties and seventies, we’re not bound by the taboos that have held back Boomers and GenXers. Our parents fear the taint of “racism” because of their memories of Hair, Martin Luther King, Jr. and industrial-strength LSD: we see four Chicago savages kidnapping an autistic boy for an anti-white snuff film and we call a spade a spade.

If you’ve followed along with me this far (I’m sure all but the Six Readers stopped about a paragraph in — “oh god, he’s on about the Nazis again!”), you’ll see where this is going.  The only important difference between the SS and the Weathermen was opportunity.  Because America was a lovely place, even in the coked-out patchouli-reeking early 1970s, only a few truly deluded weirdos went underground and became Weathermen.  The Ostfront in a total war was a whole different ballgame, and while Ayers, Dohrn, et al were willing to kill cops and soldiers — and Weatherman did bomb police headquarters in L.A., and the bomb that blew many of their stupid asses up was intended for an army dance at Ft. Dix — the Einsatzkommandos could shoot all the Jews and Commissars they had bullets for.  Bernardine Dohrn praised the Manson Family for killing a pregnant Sharon Tate and sticking a fork in her stomach; Himmler praised his men for remaining “decent” while herding women and children into mobile gas vans.  Other than scale, the difference is…. what, exactly?

The opportunity for serious political violence — on an SS scale, not a Weatherman scale — is potentially right around the corner.  An entire generation is angry, hopeless, and backed into a corner. They’ve been stewed in radical politics their whole lives — remember, Ayers is a professor of education; former flower children have been in charge of almost every primary school, and certainly every college, in America for decades.  The Nazis spared no expense conducting “research” to prop up their bizarre racial views, and the flower children could at least quote Marx Marcuse and Mao to back up their weird notions of collective guilt.  Millennials can’t grasp — literally can’t grasp, and for once I’m using their signature slang unironically — the notion that different groups don’t have different rights.  They can micro-calibrate racial, gender, and sexual identities with a sickening ease that’s beyond us older folks.  They’ve been trained to do so for literally their entire lives.

What happens when the student loan bubble pops?

What happens when China’s economy crashes?

What happens when the shitlords in the crowd start punching first?

It’s not going to end well.

 

 

(1) except Goebbels, who was rejected for service due to a club foot.

(2) As any World War 2-related discussion invariably brings out the internet’s spergiest spergs, let’s get this down for the record: I’m grossly oversimplifying.  I’m talking about the type of guy who ended up in one (or several) of the organizations under the umbrella of the RHSA, the Reich Main Security Office.   The SS was a separate organization, and because of the distinctive Nazi leadership style, there was serious, vicious competition between them and the RHSA, and within the various departments of the RHSA.  But because the Nazi-est Nazis were in the SS, and because everyone who was anyone in the Gestapo, SD, etc. also held SS rank, I’m using “SS” as a catchall term to describe this type of guy.  I’m also aware that the SS itself was far from a homogeneous organization, and that there’s a difference between an Einsatzkommando and a private in the Waffen-SS.  I’m really not interested in who did what during the war, who should’ve been sentenced to what at Nuremberg, et cetera ad nauseam.  There are plenty of cheeto-stained gentlemen on the internet who’d be happy to discuss all that with you; don’t bring it up here.

(3) N.b. to spergs part II: Whether the Nazi regime could’ve existed without going to war, or if it were capable of winning any of the wars it could have chosen to fight, are open questions that we won’t be getting into here.  Save it for your Man in the High Castle fan fic.

(4) not a typo; their official name was WeathermAn, singular.

(5) I know, I know, I’m excluding Gen X.  For one thing, that’s my generation, so it’s hard to be objective about it.  My quick take, though, is that Gen X was largely against youthful rebellion because “being against youthful rebellion” WAS youthful rebellion.  Remember: our parents, the Boomers, made Sticking it to The Man a lifestyle, and they just Would. Not. Shut. UP. about it.  When you’re 18, everything your parents tell you to do is lame; therefore, Sticking it to The Man is lame.  We still did it, of course — “it” being sex drugs and rock’n’roll — since that’s what modern kids do, but we had to be all, like, you know, whatever about it.  Which is one of the main reasons our kids are so fucked up.  And now, back to the rant….

I Made Jim Give at the Office

So this meme post comes across my timeline when a friend commented on it.

I’ve seen it before.  But man.  It is so demonstrably untrue, this time I had to say something.

As with a lot of these things, there’s a lot missing. Of course conservatives care. They just don’t think they should be able to use the force of government to force anyone else to act like they care, and in what ways they must act like they care. Conservatives don’t typically have a need to be seen caring. They just do it.

To which one woman replied:

“Sorry. Cutting aid to starving children doesn’t seem like caring about anything but your own pocketbook.”

So I went on:

You talk as if aid is this thing that is just there in nature – like air, that everyone has a right to, and someone is taking it away.

It’s a matter of perspective. Aid should be given freely, not taken. When government is in charge of it, the only “taking” is done from the people who had it to begin with.

As if it is only aid if it came from the government. Well nothing comes from the government. Everything it has came from someone else (or will come from someone else, since it borrows heavily from our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ futures to pay for this aid in this generation).

And it is demonstrably untrue that conservatives don’t care and don’t give to charity. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals … here, a link from the definitively NOT conservative NYT on a study that surprised even the researcher. (note this is on TOP of what they are required to “give” through the government).

Political liberals are all about telling people how much of other people’s money people should get, but it apparently stops with supporting the mandates, not giving freely themselves.

“I’ll pass, I made Jim give at the office.”

Get this … here’s a real response I got.

Why are all of these trolls suddenly showing up on a Liberal FB page?? All of you need to leave us alone.

So you can be free to echo the hate you have based on demonstrably false premises without being challenged?  And we’re responsible for the divisiveness?

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.”

dipkoukmvc8uryknny8f

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….

QED.

 

 

*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.

The AC/DC Act

Morgan brought up, on the Hello Kitty of bloggin’, the fact that dry-cleaning costs have gone up faster than shirt costs, he suspects because of some ranting by New Feminists that women were being charged more for dry cleaning than men were, so they raised the prices for men (which did nothing to help women, except for make it so that more of them had to iron their husbands’ shirts due to new budgetary constraints).

This has led to an undesirable increase in the cleaning cost to shirt cost ratio, which he suspects has gone from about 0.1 to 0.4.

History would make me guess this must have been called the “Dry Cleaning Equality Act”, since that’s the kind of name they come up with to sell these things.  I imagine the Association of American Dry Cleaners helped draft the law and lobbied heavily for it.

As usual, the only way to solve problems created by the government is to have the government try to solve it with more government.  The problem is this ratio increase, called the “Dini Index”.  So clearly the solution must drive this ratio back down.

The obvious way to do this would be to mandate that people buy more expensive shirts.  Of course this means that less expensive shirts should be outlawed (who should be forced to wear sub-par shirts, after all?). We will therefore call this the Affordable Clothing Dry Cleaning Act, or the ACDC Act (Dirty Duds and They’re Done Dirt Cheap!)

By increasing the cost of each shirt, the Dry Cleaning Cost to Shirt Cost ratio goes back down – dry cleaning is therefore more affordable because Science™.

Naturally, since we can’t expect the less fortunate among us to be able to afford the more expensive shirts, we will also be expected to shoulder our Fair Share™ of the cost to society and subsidize expensive shirts for the poor.

I won’t go into the details of the act itself. You’ll just have to pass the act to find out what’s in it.  I’ll merely assure you that it’ll make dry cleaning more affordable and that if you like your current shirt vendor, you can keep him*.    If you’re not for it, you clearly hate poor people and are on the Highway to Hell.
——————
(*) as long as he offers only the shirts we allow and remains in business.  We take no responsibility for driving him out … ahem … his decision to leave the market.

Details, Details

There are no Ace of Spades types among the Four Regular Readers — we’re Not His Class, Dear — but if there were, I’d love to ask them: How, exactly, is Hillary going to beat Trump?

I don’t mean bromides like “because Trump is a jerk and a poopyhead!”  I mean procedurally.  Walk me through the mechanism.  What’s she going to run on?  What are her signature issues?  What’s she going to bring up in the debates?  IS she going to debate?

Ace’s theory seems to be “She’ll lay low and let Trump immolate himself, which he’s sure to do, because the media is in such a tizzy that their anti-Trump 24/7 attack mode is going to make what they did to George W. Bush look like the happy ending to an Oriental massage.”

Do y’all seriously think that’s going to work?

Yes, Trump is an egomaniac and yes, he never misses an opportunity to not shut up and yes, he says all kinds of controversial stuff all the time.  But Trump isn’t stupid, no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves otherwise, and he’s been dealing with this stuff since last summer, and all his self-immolatory style brought him was the Presidential nomination.  I know y’all think of yourselves as the Alt-Media, Ace et al, but you’re not — you only share their basic assumptions, one of which is that you are Shapers of the Narrative.  In fact, in this particular election the Narrative shapes you, and the Narrative is:

Look how much the American public hates the fucking Media.

Seriously.  I’m no Nostradamus, but I can read the news and work a google machine, and it’s pretty obvious what Trump’s response to all this is going to be: “When are you going to be asking Hillary these questions?”  And then the Media will get all outraged — how dare you question our objectivity?!? — and then Trump’s poll numbers will rise 10 more points like they do every time he tells the Media to go fuck themselves.

Eventually Trump is going to get around to making his trademark self-destructive statements about Hillary’s record.  And, in the course of getting all outraged!!!1!eleventy! about it, the Media will have to report what the man actually said.  At which point, he accomplishes two objectives simultaneously: He points out how incompetent and corrupt Hillary is, and he highlights, in the starkest possible way, how incompetent and corrupt the Media are in their pro-Hillary cheerleading.

I mean, he’s only been doing this for a year now.  Am I the only one who sees this?  How can you, Ace, who thinks of himself as a smarter version of a Fox news bobblehead, not see this?  Isn’t it your job to see this?