Explaining Academia V: Sacred Science

Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

We’re getting to the heart of what makes the American college campus such a perfect SJW boot camp.  The previous four items dealt with behavior; this one concerns ideology.  And Leftism, SJWism, Maoism, Leninism, whatever you want to call it (they’re all basically the same thing) is an ideology.  It’s got an underlying philosophy that is consistent with itself.*  It’s even got a kernel of truth to it, as all successful ideologies do.

No, really.  We’ve observed here many times that just about every item on the Left’s agenda has some small basis in fact.  It’s a form of Gem reasoning, combined with a clown nose on/ clown nose off rhetorical strategy, that turns obvious (indeed, often trite) observations about human behavior into SJW dogma.  Like so: We’d all agree, I think, that if you kicked a nice, impeccably PC Millennial American through a stargate and set him up as an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, in no time he’d start strutting around like a god on earth.  Similarly, take a pharaoh, reverse-stargate him onto a modern American college campus, and pretty soon he and his nose ring would be down at the daily protest whining about safe spaces.**

Thus “proving” the Lefty dogma item of your choice: There’s no such thing as race, ____ is a social construction, blah blah blah.

Or not, of course, since everyone recognizes that behavior changes with social circumstances.  Move to Boston, and you’ll watch a lot of Red Sox games.  Move to the UK, and you’ll gain at least some appreciation for cricket.  But watch this: By “valorizing” the game of cricket, by linking it to the “tropes” of Whiteness and power, the Victorian cricket players who ran the Raj in the 19th century made “knowledge of cricket” into one of the behavior norms for aspiring members of the ruling caste — a conscious strategy, in other words, to co-opt the native middle class, who might otherwise realize their own indispensability to the Raj and conspire to overthrow it.  So successful was this tactic that cricket is the national sport of India to this day.

I used cricket because no Americans care about it, so the trick is obvious — of course the babus would learn to appreciate cricket, since that was their social group.  The pitch (or field or whatever you play cricket on) was the only place they could meet as equals and put aside all those race, class, and cultural divisions that separated them.  Playing cricket together was an attempt at social bonding, not some nefarious plot to Anglicize the natives.  But you sure can make it look underhanded, especially if you replace “cricket” with “speaking English,” “Christianity,” etc.  There’s an entire prestigious field of Cultural Studies called Subaltern Studies that is pretty much nothing but this.  Though they don’t know it — since, you know, they don’t read anything but Game of Thrones and Harry Potter — it’s where our SJWs get all that stuff about the raw authenticity of the colored man.

See what I mean?  Take an obvious observation about human behavior, sacralize it by assigning Whitey some nefarious motive, lay it out with 50 cent words that you have to memorize to pass the test, and soon enough you’ve got the One True Ring that explains everything.  And since to understand is to excuse, now you’ve got a license to riot every time your pwecious widdle feewings get bruised….



*Except in the Great Mystery that all successful religions have.  Christianity’s, of course, is “how can a God also be a man?”  Leftism’s is: “Man’s social being determines his consciousness… yet I, a man, have so far transcended my social being that I can say verily unto you, no man’s consciousness can transcend his social being.”

**Not really relevant, but the combination of pharaohs and SJWs reminds me of a fun old joke from the USSR:  A mummy, obviously a pharaoh, is discovered in the desert, but nobody can figure out who he is.  It becomes a matter of national pride, and all the Western nations have a crack at it, but Americans, British, French, they all fail to identify the mummy.  In desperation they turn to a team of Soviet Egyptologists, who go into the room where the mummy is stored.  Half an hour later they come out and make their pronouncement:  “It’s Ramses XXVI.”  “How did you figure it out?” the entire scientific community asks.  “He confessed of his own accord, the bastard!”

Explaining Academia IV: Confession

Part 3 here.

Probably the most famous commie brainwashing tactic is the struggle session.  Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution raised this to an art form:


Lifton’s Totalism and the Psychology of Thought Reform focuses on the subjects of struggle sessions — POWs who have their personalities broken down and rebuilt, like the Manchurian Candidate.  And while that’s certainly effective, it’s inefficient to individually “struggle” each thoughtcriminal.  Thus, the struggle session’s goal isn’t to break down the individual target (although that’s great if it happens); it’s to reinforce orthodoxy in the group doing the struggling.  Our innate need for consistency — or fear of cognitive dissonance, however you want to see it — all but guarantees that if we hurl abuse at someone in the name of a cause, we’ll come to believe in that cause ourselves.

There’s an entire genre of reeducation camp lit that has endless examples.  Note that they’re almost entirely Asian — since the gulag system was an essential part of the Soviet economy, they pretty much dropped the “reform” part of reform-through-labor.  The Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese kept it, though, and refined it on both their own people and captured American personnel.  If you have a strong stomach, check out The Aquariums of Pyongyang, Prisoner of Maoor any one of many American POW memoirs from Vietnam (e.g. Five Years to Freedom).  The common thread is that these men survived being “struggled” with their personalities intact, despite horrific abuse.  Their fellow prisoners, however, often did not.

This is why college kids are always on the lookout for new witches to burn, new offenses to punish.  It’s certainly not to make the campus “safer,” “more inclusive,” or whatever else they say their motives are.  Check this out, for instance.  I can guarantee you that an Evergreen College professor named Weinstein is as liberal as they come, and his college president agrees with the protestors in every particular.  And yet, in true Red Guard style, they threaten the prof’s life and even force the President to put his arms down while speaking to them.  There’s not a dime’s worth of difference, ideologically, between anyone in that room… and yet, physical violence is threatened by screaming-mad Maolings.  They’re not struggling President Bridges, as he already agrees with them.  He can’t “confess” to any counterrevolutionary crimes, because he hasn’t committed any.  The point of his “confession” — and he will confess to something, if only “holding his arms out in a racist manner” — is to reinforce the protestors’ orthodoxy.

It doesn’t take much.  Often a campus-wide email blast, even a tangential one, is enough.  If you haven’t been on campus lately, you probably don’t know that every college in America has at least one, and usually several, LGBTQWhatever clubs, promoting “safe spaces,” “take back the night” marches, and “awareness,” endless “awareness.”  Trust me, y’all — everyone on campus is as “aware” of this madness as it’s possible to be, and actionable “hate” incidents are so rare that the ones that happen are invariably pulled off by grievance groups themselves.  These clubs’ point isn’t to actually do anything, in other words — by simply spreading the word, by emailing the entire .edu address book with yet another “awareness week,” they’re conducting a low-level struggle session.  Police your thoughts, these emails say, or we’ll do it for you.  (If you actually go to one of these events, you’ll see the same six people over and over and over; only their hair colors and piercing configurations change).

Explaining Academia: Demand for Purity

Part II here.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

This one’s pretty obvious, so I’ll just point out Nietzsche’s observation about purity rules as will to power — the Brahmins used ludicrous asceticism to impose the caste system on society.  This is the point of “rape culture” hysteria.  Not even drunk college kids are stupid enough not to notice the blatant contradiction between “one in four college girls is raped!” and “we demand free college education for everyone!”  The point is to make everyone a potential rapist, with his precise degree of guilt to be determined by the campus’ shrillest feminists on a case-by-case basis.

And it works.  If I were in charge of marketing for, say, Campus Crusade for Christ, I’d get a purity campaign going myself.  Turn necessity into a virtue, and, guys’ competitive nature being what it is, you could get a pretty decent “true love waits”-type movement going.  As it is, though, the ever-increasing demands for purity only ratchet up the climate of fear on campus….

…which is the point.

Explaining Academia: Mystical Manipulation

Part I here.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Here’s a fairy tale: 30-ish A.D, Roman authorities in Palestine execute yet another in a long line of rabble-rousing, apocalypse-preaching mystics.  But this time they botch the job somehow, because reports quickly begin to circulate that the guru is still alive.  His followers, though, insist that the mystic actually raised himself from the dead — as he said he would — thus fulfilling all the prophecies about him and proving all his claims.

Most of that actually happened, as proven by sources any reasonable historian would accept.  The kicker is the guru’s followers’ claim, that the mystic actually did rise from the dead.  Because that claim is so implausible, we immediately discount it… but because his followers seem so damn sure, we start looking for alternatives: He was in a coma.  The Roman authorities thought he was dead when they took him off the cross, but he was still just barely alive, and recovered.  The disciples found a convincing lookalike.  Mass hysteria.  Whatever — we accept that something like the Resurrection actually happened, just not the thing itself.

Which is an at least superficially plausible account of Christianity’s origins, and, since the appeal of its message is obvious, is thus a superficially plausible account of Christianity’s subsequent career.  Most of us “know” lots of intellectual and cultural history that way — e.g. you probably memorized something like “the Romantic movement was a backlash against the Industrial Revolution” without thinking about it too much.  If you’re not a believer, Fox Mulder’s motto is good enough — they wanted to believe, so they did, on whatever grounds did the trick at the time.*

Here’s another fairy tale: in 1517, the Western world was being trampled under the two oppressive boots of The Church and Feudalism.  Combined, they stifled free thought, free expression, and, most importantly, the free movement of goods and gold.  So when Martin Luther posted up his famous Theses, merchants everywhere seized upon their revolutionary potential to overthrow both the Church and its enabler, Feudalism (remember, the Church owned up to half the land in most kingdoms).  From then on, money and reform went hand in hand — Capitalism created Protestantism; dialectically, Protestantism created Capitalism.

This, too, is a superficially plausible account of the origins of the Early Modern world.  To take one of endless examples, it seems pretty suspicious that the guys leading the charge to overthrow and execute Charles I — an old-school Divine Right monarch if ever there were one — just happened to be both Puritans and petit bourgeois.  See also the Huguenots, the Plymouth Colony, etc. — nobody drives a harder bargain than a guy who thinks we’re all damned to hell.

Again — superficially plausible.  Problem is, unlike Christianity, Marx’s whole schmear doesn’t rely on a physical impossibility (for those who went to college after about 1990, or who skipped class before, that whole Capitalism/Protestantism thing is Kapital 101).  Saying credo quia absurdum doesn’t get you any social cachet – this is the much likelier response, plus loads of crippling self doubt on a lot of sleepless nights.  Reducing the vast sweep of human thought to “the needs of Capital,” however, makes you sound smart, or at least college educated, to people who have been trained to regard polysyllabic gobbledygook as profundity — that is, any graduate of the American school system in the past 50 years.  And since nearly all of us forget, nearly always,  that correlation is not causation, the fact that lots of merchants were Puritans makes us behave as if the desire to make a buck caused Puritanism, or vice versa.  We ignore all the Puritans who weren’t merchants (the vast majority), all the merchants who weren’t Puritans (ditto), and all the angst Puritan merchants themselves had over their lifestyles (cf. Max Weber, above, and the Salem Witch Trials).  “Capital” doesn’t do anything, because it can’t — capital-C “Capital” is historians’ shorthand for the outcome of a lot of interrelated but autonomous processes, not some mysterious Force that arranges people like chess pieces to accomplish its mysterious designs.

Mystical manipulation, see?  Because Protestantism, the consolidation of national states, a rapid rise in literacy, the expansion of international trade, a revolution in military tactics, and a zillion other things were all happening at the same time, and because you need money for all of them, it not only doesn’t sound absurd to say “Capitalism” caused them all, it actually sounds correct.  And because of that, the guy who says it sounds like a genius.  And because of that, that guy’s disciples start furiously spinning their rationalization hamsters to come up with canon-consistent explanations for all the stuff the guru got wrong — which is to say, the vast majority of it.

And, of course, if you disagree with me, I’ll flunk your term paper.



*Not being an ancient historian or a Christian apologist, I’d be curious to know if there were any other resurrection claims in the ancient world.  If you assume Christianity is just a myth, James Frazier-style, then yeah, there’s Osiris, Orpheus returning from the underworld, etc.  But did anyone, anywhere, ever claim that about a man?  Christianity spread by word of mouth from people who unquestionably existed, and who personally saw Jesus, before and after.  Saying that Christ was transformed into an Osiris figure after his death won’t hold, unless you also claim that the Apostles were also suffering from that specific delusion, immediately after the crucifixion.  I seem to recall that there are lots of references to sorcerers who claimed to be able to raise the dead, Witch of Endor-style, but no references to any individual so raised walking around in the sun.

Explaining Academia: Milieu Control, Part I

Milieu control is a basic mind-control tactic.  Severely restrict the environment, and you limit the mental world of its inhabitants.  Robert Jay Lifton’s Mind Control and the Psychology of Totalism is still the best primer on how this is done.  He identifies eight factors for successful “brainwashing.”  Lifton’s subjects were American POWs from the Korean War and former Chinese labor camp inmates, but stop me if this sounds familiar:

Milieu Control: This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.

Doctrine over person. Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

Sounds like “How to Build an SJW in Eight Easy Steps,” doesn’t it?  American colleges have spent the past half-century perfecting it.

The first trick, that starts even before you arrive on campus, is “mystical manipulation.”  Obviously it doesn’t take a prison camp somewhere in the jungle to control a milieu.  In their long march through the institutions, our Gramscian Leftists have successfully co-opted the “rah-rah-sis-boom-bah” going-off-to-college thing, using the form while subverting the content.

Think about it for a sec: Where are you likely to find the most “offensive” team nicknames?  For as hot and bothered as our mini-Maos get over the Washington Redskins, there’s no comparable outcry over the Fighting Illini (Indians), the Hoosiers (yokels), the Fighting Irish, the Jayhawks (abolitionist guerrillas), the Seminoles, the Aztecs, and all the other horribly racist mascots and team names out there.  Some of that can of course be attributed to college kids’ vast, cosseted ignorance (I myself had no idea who Francis Redding Tillou Nicholls was), but some of the others are pretty obvious.  Ditto campus traditions like the University of Iowa’s famous pink visitors’ locker room.  This gets a little squib in the sports news every fall, as feminist professors and students stage their annual protest.  But it never gets changed, even though football is as Patriarchal as it gets and Iowa, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and the rest of the corn-country bolsheviks, prides itself on its progressive bona fides.  The answer is pretty simple: love them or hate them, the act of either loving or hating them is one hell of a team-builder.  Nobody who didn’t go there has ever heard of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, but I promise you that every current and former student has a very strong opinion on whether or not the “Vaquero” mascot is offensive.  And that’s not even considering all the “offensive” high school nicknames and mascots out there.  Grade school “educators” and administrators are the most PC people on the planet.  Don’t you think the Midgets and the Arabs would be changed in a heartbeat in any other context?  It’s by design.

Our declawed modern adolescence plays right into their hands.  Teenagerhood is a frantic quest for an identity.  That’s what all those hokey high school rituals used to be about.  You get some girl to wear your letter jacket, and you write her name on your book covers, not because you’re the love of each other’s life, and certainly not to stake a claim or whatever the feminists would have you believe.  It’s an identity claim: I am the type of person who can get a girl to wear my letter jacket / get a boy to write my name on his book covers.  And you go to prom together, and you have “your song” that you have to stop and kiss whenever it plays on the radio, and all that other gloopy Leave It to Beaver crap.  And so too with any of the other identities high school kids used to put on and take off, like the clothes that marked them — “goth,” “stoner,” “preppie,” whatever.  It didn’t matter that you didn’t actually like The Cure all that much, or if your girlfriend lived in Canada; everyone pretended to believe your identity claim, because you were pretending to believe theirs, and that’s how you got the mental, emotional, and social tools to actually construct a real identity for yourself when you got out on your own.

Cultural Marxism killed all that.  Technology played its part, too — nobody has “their song” in the iTunes era — but mostly it was deliberate.  Now everyone gets a letter jacket and it’s some kind of hate crime to hold hands with someone of the opposite gender — if, of course, you still believe in such an outdated and hateful concept as “gender” — in a public place.  Nobody’s different and everyone’s the best at everything, as Principal Skinner put it.

So identity formation gets put off until college.  You start out as a Wolverine or a Tiger or a Banana Slug or whatever, but you end up a Social Justice Warrior.  You come to college decked out in all the gear, your dorm is festooned with the mascot, the streets of the town are all named after famous alumni, and every business seems to cater just to you (complete with “welcome to campus!” specials).  The word “townie” enters your vocabulary, and if you’re in a big city, you learn that the surrounding area is a no-go zone (the “townies” in that situation invariably being Vibrant and Diverse, but in a non-celebrated way).  Nobody learns the fight song or wears the freshman beanie anymore, but thanks to campus-specific social media, you learn right away, and in great depth, what it means to be a Directional Tech Fightin’ Whatever.  You’re already separated from you hometown, your high school, your parents, and your friends (even your best buds, and especially if they went to hated rival Regional State).  You’re primed and ready, in other words, to believe anything your indoctrinator tells you.

And then you go to class.

Part II soon.



Ideology, revolutions, and media culture go hand-in-hand.  Before the printing press, information transmission was glacial, and all conflicts were local conflicts.  Even big, seemingly ideological movements like the Crusades have been convincingly portrayed as “inventions” — historians’ shorthand for diffuse, superficially correlated movements that appear much more interrelated in hindsight than they actually were, and that the writing of history itself helps to construct (see also “Gnosticism,” the “Hundred Years’ War,” etc.).  Protestantism is the obvious example of media’s effect.  Had it not been for the printing press, Luther’s theses would’ve remained what he insisted they were — “a learned dispute between monks.”  Back when schools actually taught history, that was taken as read, along with the idea that “a vigorous print culture” was one of the key factors behind the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French and Russian Revolutions, etc. (Russia was so “backward” vis-a-vis the West, its development of print culture so recent, that a novel has been blamed for lots of its 19th century turmoil — What Is to Be Done?by Nicolai Chernyshevsky (later turned into murder manual of the same title by V.I. Lenin)).  No media culture, no revolution.

That said, how’s American media culture doing these days?

There are no obvious historical parallels, as we’ve never seen a free press prostitute itself so completely before.  Speaking of “inventions” in the historian’s sense, a “free press” is a pretty recent one, and the idea of an “objective” media took root in living memory.  Ask your grandma — even small cities and large towns used to have three or four newspapers, all nakedly partisan.  You’d have your Republican Post-Intelligencer, your Democrat Times-Picayune, and often an immigrant-oriented paper written in the old country’s language, plus a “Negro” paper in any town with more than four black residents.  It kept everyone relatively honest, as you could always count on the enemy’s newspaper snooping around, and retaliation for any misdeed was guaranteed.

But, of course, the “”””Progressives”””” got ahold of it, Gramsci-style, and did what they always do.  They proclaimed their perspective the only “objective” — and therefore, only legitimate — one, slapped an academic credential on it, and began infiltrating their newly-degreed saboteurs into every newsroom in America.  When ordinary Soviets joked that “there’s no news in the truth, and no truth in the news,” they were punning on two media outlets that had always been under the Party’s control.*  Our newspapers volunteered to censor themselves, and our “journalists” wouldn’t admit (publicly) to being Party organs if you waterboarded them.  They insist they’re defending the Truth — “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as the National Laughingstock puts it, in a phrase that’s so quintessentially MiniTrue George Orwell’s ghost must be kicking himself for not thinking of it.

What happens now?  There’s truth out there, and real news, too… but where?  More importantly, do things like Gab have any legitimacy among the masses?  Who reads them, and of the readers, who, if anyone, is prepared to act?  All the Revolutionaries in Boston in 1775 read Franklin’s broadsheets, and the Jacobin clubs of Paris all had their dedicated newspapers.  You can find out what the New Model Army was thinking by reading its pamphlets.  Do we have any Jacobins?  Are the various “Alt-Right” (whatever that means today) websites the equivalent of samizdat?  Most importantly, does anyone capable of doing anything read them?  (Remember, it wasn’t Ivan Sixpack who overthrew the USSR, but pro-Yeltsin armor officers).

I don’t know, and I have no idea how to find out.  If someone does, though, please do.  If there’s hope, it lies with the proles… provided they actually know anything, and care about what they know.



*Izvestia was a Soviet propaganda sheet whose name meant “news;” Pravda, the other Soviet propaganda sheet, means “truth.”

The Return of Muscular Christianity?

When I was in college way back in the Jurassic, the Campus Crusade for Christ* would bring around a Power Team-like traveling freakshow of bodybuilders** who would rip phone books in half and such for Jesus.  It wasn’t particularly effective, ministry-wise — this was early in the Grunge Era, when it was “lame” to be able to bench press anything heavier than a Mother Love Bone CD — but as American history was actually taught back then, I recognized it as a late, weird manifestation of a fun Gilded Age social trend, “muscular Christianity.”

Christianity has always had, for lack of a better term, a pussy problem.  Hellenistic thinkers like Celsus derided it as a religion for women and slaves, an opinion that continued at least down to, and found its most virulent expression in, Friedrich Nietzsche.  In America, laments that the churches have all been taken over by meddling women are as old as Puritanism, and after the Civil War your Henry Ward Beechers made a good living feminizing popular Christianity (Beecher was very popular with his female congregants, if you get my drift).  Nagging busybodies like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union didn’t help.

Not the most effective threat, ladies

Not the most effective threat, ladies***

Worse yet, modern life itself seemed to be sapping young men of their vitality– Gen. Jack D. Ripper’s concerns about our precious bodily fluids were a joke, but late Victorians took things like spermatorrhea very seriously, as part of the widespread degenerationneurasthenia, and decadence brought about by industrialization.  In response, young evangelicals pushed the idea of “muscular Christianity,” emphasizing Jesus’s strong carpenter-y muscles, the scourging of moneylenders from the temple, that kind of thing.  Your ideal muscular Christian spent his young manhood working out at the Y, getting pumped up to bring the Gospel and civilization (the two were basically the same) to the wogs somewhere out East of Suez or in darkest Africa, or to the Papist Irish in the benighted slums of New York and London.

And now this.  I’ve already said that getting religion is the next logical step for both SJWs and the “neomasculine” movement, and for the same reason — as purely negative philosophies, their neverending quest for external validation leads very quickly to quietism or nihilism.  Muscular Christianity splits the difference — one can remain endlessly, obsessively fixated on the external trappings of one’s pwecious widdle self, but without secularism’s crippling self-doubt.  And if the “Jesus” part of ‘roiding up for Jesus gets dropped about three sets into your bitchin’ biceps routine, brah, well, at least you’ll be shredded.




*note that even they’ve gone PC, changing their name to “Cru” so as not to offend the sensibilities of folks who behead Christians in sandy lands.  And you wonder why nobody listens anymore.

**It may actually have been the Power Team; if so, I personally witnessed a funky footnote to the last great explosion of televangelism — it’s worth a few sentences in my memoirs, anyway.

***yeah, it’s satire, but it’s true.

I’m Confused

Back in November, the Left and the #NeverTrumpers (BIRM) wanted James Comey fired.  Now that he actually has been fired, it’s a “coup.”  Or is it a Reichstag fire?  I thought Sessions’s appointment as Attorney General was the Reichstag fire, but maybe that was also a “coup.”  He’s Literally Himmler, I’m pretty sure of that…. if you wanna get technical I guess he’s Literally Otto Thierack, but since the Left doesn’t read they don’t know but three or four Nazis… which is funny in itself, given how much they love to throw Third Reich allusions around (for the record, comrades, CIA director Mike Pompeo is Literally Reinhard Heydrich, Education Secretary Betsy de Vos is Literally Bernhard Rust, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is Literally Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel.  Why?  [Belch] Why not?!  And besides, it’s more fun to say “von Stülpnagel” than “Mnuchin,” and Trump’s Literally Hitler cabinet needs at least one guy with an umlaut in his name.  Remember that, it’ll be on the midterm).  Anywho, would y’all make up your minds please?  You’re really only allowed one Nuremberg Rally, one Reichstag Fire, and one Machtergreifung before we start thinking you’re a ridiculous hysterical ninny who should be lightly tazed every time you open your mouth, until such time as you actually read a book that isn’t Game of Thrones or Harry Potter (hell, I’d put you on tazer-probation if you could demonstrate that you’d actually read either of those, instead of just catching the movie highlights on YouTube).

So unless you can explain to me why Comey needed to be fired then, but is the last bastion of free government now, just shut the fuck up, mmmkay?  Thanks.

Why is F/SF Left Wing?

Mentalities (say it French style for ivory tower street cred: mon-tall-ee-TAYS) are the hardest thing for a history teacher to convey.  The past really is a foreign country, as some dead white dude said; they do things differently there.  Archimedes, to take a well known example, invented all kinds of cool stuff that could’ve changed the world, and the Greeks even had a steam turbine.  Pop quiz, hotshots: Given all that, why was there no “steampunk” in the Classical World?

The answer is: Slavery.  Steam engines, hydraulic gears, levers, and all that badass Archimedes stuff are all, at bottom, labor-saving devices.  The ancient world was not about saving labor.  The ancient world had the opposite problem.  They had excess labor and no real way to dispose of it, save slavery — and even that was woefully inefficient, often counterproductive (see, for example, the Roman latifundia destroying their military manpower base).  So steam power was to them what nunchucks are to us — cool, but useless.

For certain values of "cool"

For certain values of “cool”

Problem is, it takes real imagination to see that.  I’m pretty sure they still teach that slavery was the basis of the ancient economy, but that’s just a fact, one of several dozen equally meaningless facts one is required to memorize for the test.  What is it like to live in a world where slavery is the primary form of labor?  Who cares?  It’s just like the American Civil War — write “slavery” in the blank and move on.  Since there’s no effort made to inhabit their mental world, it’s impossible to make connections between disjointed facts.

“Inhabiting their mental world” is, in fact, very strongly discouraged.  Let’s say I’m teaching a course on the antebellum United States, and I assign you to read John C. Calhoun’s Exposition and Protest.  Calhoun makes some pretty solid arguments, and walking a class through them would be, if done right, not just a primer on American Constitutional theory, but on social contract theory in general… not to mention hitting the high points of Federalism, Anti-Federalism, Jacksonian democracy, the First American Party System, the first Industrial Revolution, &c.  The problem, of course, was that the Exposition and Protest wasn’t “really” about the Tariff of 1828.  It was really about slavery, and if you give an inch to Calhoun’s arguments, you can’t help but conclude that he was probably right about the legal basis for slavery, too.  Which is Badthink in the First Degree, punishable by an F in the class, a semester of mandatory Diversity Awareness, and the entire university kangaroo court apparatus hounding you every day for the rest of your brief college career.  And that’s just what would happen to you, the student — I’d be sent to the salt mines.

Which brings us to Fantasy and Science Fiction, and why it’s nothing but SJW propaganda these days (betcha didn’t see that coming!).

I honestly have no idea what our K-12 ed professionals think they’re trying to achieve, but what they actually do achieve is the annihilation of imagination.  History and Literature are still taught, of course, but only in the manner I’ve described — disjointed facts and canned answers to be memorized, regurgitated, and forgotten.  How could it be otherwise?  Western Civ is 99.97% the story of CisHetPat White males, who are, always have been, and always will be, pure evil.  Why would anyone care what they thought about anything?  Thus History, when it leaves off slamming the native stock’s many and obvious flaws, is nothing but the hagiography of Diverse nobodies sticking it to The Man.  Ditto Literature, all of which can be CliffsNoted “Blackity Black Latinx homo vagina, kemosabe.”

How, then, is one to even begin imagining a different world, full of elves and dragons and androids and whatnot?  The only creativity tolerated in our grade schools is the kind that brings a so-called “fact” into conformity with the Current Year’s Social Justice catechism.  These kids exist in an endless, contextless present; if there is no past, how can there be a future?  This has been the state of American education for the past 50 years, and when you consider that Upper West Side SWPLs — you know, the folks that run every traditional publishing house in Manhattan — got it first and hardest, well, it stands to reason, doesn’t it?  To these drones, pronounless gunch really does seem like groundbreaking stuff, not a sophomoric marketing stunt.

I don’t really read F/SF, or much fiction at all anymore, but I teach kids who do.  They really think this crap is creativity.  The faster Vox Day and Castalia House buries them all, and salts the earth around them, the better.


Lefties Getting Religion

It’s time now for another one of my wild-ass predictions.  Limber up your commenting fingers now; I look forward, as always, to hearing how wrong I am.  But I’m willing to bet that the Left is going to find religion in a big way here in the next few decades.  And I don’t mean it in the trite (and, of course, true and obvious) sense that Leftism itself is a religion.  I mean an honest-to-God (heh), come-to-Jesus moment.  It’s the next logical waypoint on their trajectory.

Have you read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer?  If you haven’t, do so right away — it’s short, it’s pithy, and it explains Leftism like nothing else can.  Hoffer points out that all modern mass movements, from creepy cults with a few dozen members to the Democratic Party, are comprised of the same basic type of loser: Someone so dissatisfied with himself that he longs to submerge himself in something greater, to trade his own flawed individual identity for the perfect anonymous Identity of the collective.  The movement’s doctrines change according to circumstances, but it always offers the same solution.  That’s why, as he notes, Nazis and Communists in Weimar Germany put so much effort into recruiting among their avowed enemies.  The KPD had less quotable leadership than the Nazis, so we’ll have to take Goebbels’s word for it — he bragged that he could turn a Red into a Brown in two weeks.

It should be obvious that this is the emotional fuel of Leftism (or “this stuff we today call ‘liberalism’,” as Morgan prefers).  This is how today’s angel was yesterday’s devil and back again — see, for example, the recent saga of Stephen Colbert’s “homophobia.”  It hardly needs to be said that an unreconstructed Reich-winger like myself would lose everything I own had I publicly called someone a “cock-holster,” no matter how many gay friends I paraded out to give me absolution.  It’s not hypocrisy, not really.  It’s just that cognitive dissonance doesn’t exist for the Left, because “Left” isn’t an ideology, it’s an identity, and a psyche divided against itself cannot stand.  Pick any bullet point of the modern Left’s catechism and trace it back a few years — I guarantee you you’ll find them hyperventilating about the exact opposite thing.  Why, in just my post college years I’ve seen the very same persons go from

  • “monogamy is a vile, breeder-imposed insult to the gay lifestyle” to “gay marriage is a fundamental right;”
  • “illegal immigrants are bad because they bring down the American worker’s wages” to “ur a raciss for putting the word ‘illegal’ in front of ‘immigrant;'”
  • “there are only two genders (what do you think the “B” in “LGBTQ” stands for?)” to “there are as many genders as one feels xyrzelf needs at any given time”

etc.  If cognitive dissonance were a real thing out there in Lefty-land, it’d be raining brain matter to this day from all the head explosions.  That’s because cognition has nothing to do with it.  It’s a matter of belief and identity — the exact same mechanism that gets the Christian believer over the logical contradiction between “Jesus is God” and “Jesus was a man,” gets the Leftist over all of his many, many, many (many many many many many) daily self-contradictions.

And now for the supernatural bit.  For these past 200 years, Lefties have gone all-in on “science,” which to them means blank-slate equalism and dialectical materialism.  Those aren’t the terms they’d use, of course — I bet you not one Liberal in a thousand has read word one of Karl Marx — but that’s what they mean.  Problem is, both of those are laughably false, and you can’t read actual science for five minutes without seeing it.  So what’s a good “Progressive” to do?

Every Christian I know (and I am one myself) agrees that biology is valid — it is not possible for a man, or any organism, to come back from the dead.  We all hold the truths of logic to be self-evident, too — one entity cannot be both man and god, because that violates the principle of non-contradiction.  But that doesn’t stop us from being Christians; we feel it to be true, and that’s enough — the consolations of faith are far more important than the sterile truths of biology and logic.  I trust I don’t have to spell the rest of it out — given a choice between “I fucking love science” and actual, you know, science, your Lefty will take the meme every time.  It’s a religious belief, and he damn well knows it….

…which makes simply saying so the natural next step.  The only reason we think they won’t do it is because they’ve devoted their entire lives thus far to making fun of the drooling, cousin-porking Bible thumpers and their Magic Sky Fairy.  But again, CogDis isn’t a thing in their world — see the bulleted list, above.  Don’t you see?  We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.  And best of all, as Our Betters constantly inform us, Jesus himself was a Socialist.  Why do you think they keep trotting that chestnut out?  Obviously they themselves don’t believe it, as they themselves aren’t Christian…

….yet.  Give it a decade, two at the outside.  I’d look for the so-called “social gospel” to make a roaring comeback here soon.