Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘political correctness’

Why Political Correctness Is Mental Control

Tuesday, November 7th, 2017

Political correctness, or the art of forcing people to certain ideological conclusions by making it taboo to express the opposite, takes advantage of the duality of the human mind: we have a creative-analytic part that comes up with options, and a personality-social part that filters out options which will fail in social situations.

As a form of inversion, or the process by which terms are made into their opposites by slowly removing the foundational concepts which form the basis for their meaning, political correctness specifies what you cannot say, leaving only what is ideologically correct according to the Left, which is the only force to wield political correctness.

We can see the reasoning for the duality of the human mind through a computational example which provides a model of consciousness:

NVIDIA achieves this by using an algorithm that pairs two neural networks — a generator and a discriminator — that compete against each other. The generator starts from a low resolution image and builds upon it, while the discriminator assesses the results, sort of like a constant critic, pointing out where things have gone wrong.

Our generator is the subconscious mind. Presented with a new stimulus, it blooms into a cornucopia of options. Those are then passed to the ego, which anticipates whether each action is consistent with the personality and the social group, and rejects those that are not. Political correctness takes advantage of this by making certain ideas seem socially unacceptable so they will be filtered out.

In a more insidious take, political correctness also serves as mental control by attempting to use the rejection of ideas by the discriminator as a means of influencing the generator, so that people believe their internal censorship comes from themselves instead of being externally imposed.

Linda Gottfredson describes political correctness as “indirect control,” which is consistent with the decentralized nature of liberal democracy:

Less striking forms of censorship directly affect many more academics, however, and so may be more important. Easier to practice without detection and to disguise as “academic judgment,” they serve to keep scholars from pursuing ideas that might undermine the egalitarian dogma.

A less obvious form of censorship, which has become somewhat common recently, is indirect censorship. It is accomplished when academic or scientific organizations approve some views but repudiate or burden others on ideological grounds. Sometimes the ideological grounds are explicit Campus speech codes are a well-known example which, had they been upheld in the courts, would have made repudiation of the egalitarian fiction a punishable offense on some campuses. The earlier (unsuccessful) attempt to include possible “offense to minority communities” as grounds for refusing human subjects approval is another example.

…This form of indirect censorship, also falling under the rubric of “political correctness,” occurs when university administrators, faculty, or officers of professional associations disguise as “professional judgment” an ideological bias in their enforcing of organizational rules, extending faculty privileges, protecting faculty rights, and weighing evidence in faculty promotions and grievances.

In our neo-Communist society, all censorship is indirect; it is better to give people rewards for censoring others, and then to destroy those who fail to conform, than to have government directly intervene. This way, people compete to enforce ideological taboos on one another and gain a sense of joy in the destruction of their fellows through ostracism and shaming.

This can be done through promotions. You do not want to be the person to promote someone who is politically unacceptable, as then your peers will not promote you. However, if you promote someone who is ideologically correct above and beyond the norm, you will gain hero points. This creates a “market” for banishing realists and promoting ideologues.

The power of the Left however is that it has no permanence, like conservatism strives for. Novelty rules, and no position is safe, so everyone must constantly scramble to prove that they are worthy. This intensifies the competition for ideological correctness:

The Old Left, such as Communism, was very much like a Godless religion; and it did have saints- such as Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao. But the New Left of Social Justice and Political Correctness has only temporary idols, any of whom may be vilified and demonized at any time.

…The lesson is that modern Leftism is parricidal (as well as fratricidal), nobody is secure in their Sainthood – indeed nobody and no group is secure in the status: even Marx’s ‘proletariat’ was redefined as evil white males. Today’s Gods are tomorrow’s devils.

And this is the essence of the beast: it is negative, oppositional, lives by subversion, inversion and destruction of the Good; its stance is perpetual opposition.

Stability and the status quo and tradition is attacked, but there is no alternative stable state in view; no Social Justice utopia being aimed-at; no end-point at which political correctness will say ‘enough’, ‘this is it’.

At this point, we can see that political correctness has attributes of a society consuming itself. Much as during the Terror in revolutionary France, no one is ever safe, and so people are made into servants of the power. This force people to obey and believe in political correctness in order to stay relevant and have normal lives.

This subverts the generator-discriminator relationship by forcing the generator to focus on issues other than those found in reality. The mind, awash in ideology, looks toward wholly symbolic truths and victories, and by doing so, crowds out any connection to concerns about the physical world and its future.

Unfortunately for us, political correctness is massively powerful because no one wants to be the one objecting to something that “sounds like” it will be helping protect the less fortunate against the powerful. Our human mythos involves seeing ourselves as victims because this way we can rationalize our failures.

Over time, neo-Communism produces a society where no one dares discuss controversial topics lest they be destroyed by other people seeking to advance themselves by metaphorically consuming others:

The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal—58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.

Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.

If you are preaching Leftism, then you have less to hide, because you are not on the right side of history, but on the side of the forces of decay, and therefore are insulated from any consequences to your speech. Those who are in the middle, which translate to “Right” from the Leftist view, or honest Right, find themselves being something else: targets.

That explains how societies die. Dialogue drifts away from the real and toward the symbolic. People chase the symbolic because there, they can have a victory that gains them more power in the system; others compete with that and, in unison, the people of that civilization reject reality and chase their tokens, to their own doom.

Red-Pilled Professor Burns It All Down in Condign Disgust

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

Perhaps the Good Professor had just had enough. Enough of the farce, the Leftist propaganda, the ridiculous, intellectually stifling bias that has turned the modern academy into an absolute joke. Dr. Bruce Gilley had probably built a career out of acceptable, mediocre, moderate liberalism and had parlayed this maundering mental menopause into professional tenure at Portland State University.

But then he snapped and said what he really feels about academic diversity. Perhaps his red-pilling began when he attempted to propose and chair a discussion panel at the 2017 annual conference of the Political Science Association in San Francisco. He proposed a panel on “Viewpoint Diversity in Political Science.” Here’s what he planned on discussing.

My submission featured four of the most prominent political scientists in the country who have written on the issue of political diversity in the field. They included Joshua Dunn, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, whose co-authored 2016 book entitled Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University has been a focus of the national discussion among academics interested in the issue; and April Kelly-Woessner, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Legal Studies at Elizabethtown College, whose co-authored 2011 book The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power Politics and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education is the gold standard on how to promote respectful political dialogue on campus.

He hit the open-minded, tolerant, leftist wall.

A total of 11 full panels or roundtables were accepted in the teaching and education sections. Of these, 7 are on mainstream teaching topics. Another 4 were set aside for, shall we say, more politicized topics. One, entitled “Let’s Talk about Sex (and Gender and Sexuality)”, is on how to restructure the classroom around ideas of being “genderfluid, transgender, or gender nonconforming.” Another, on “Tolerance, Diversity, and Assessment” will focus on how to use administrative coercion to enforce various group identity agendas. The third, called “Taking Advantage of Diversity,” will help scholars to understand why their quaint notions of cutting edge knowledge are merely expressions of white identity. Another, “Teaching Trump”, is composed of left-wing feminist scholars.

It turned out that out of 104 different panels that took place at this conference, every one of them dealt with either narrowly technical aspects of teaching Poli-Sci or involves predominantly had leftist politics. The entire Poli-Sci profession essentially claimed only one point of view actually existed. The next question Socrates would ask would be “Why then do we need a science of politics if everybody already agrees?”

He then resigned from the PSA and decided to troll hard with deliberate malice aforethought. He submitted “The case for colonialism” (full article) to The Third World Quarterly and then stood back to admire the positively masterful tornado of turds. The egos and pretensions popped which then precipitated an academic jihad that made a better case for doing something with these people than Dr. Gilley ever could have. The abstract for the aforementioned crimethought paper now reads as follows.

This Viewpoint essay has been withdrawn at the request of the academic journal editor, and in agreement with the author of the essay. Following a number of complaints, Taylor & Francis conducted a thorough investigation into the peer review process on this article. Whilst this clearly demonstrated the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, in line with the journal’s editorial policy, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. These threats are linked to the publication of this essay. As the publisher, we must take this seriously. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.

Having moved three bong hits or so to the left of irony, the “Progressives” brought Change.org to enforce the orthodoxy. Those who dare to disagree must retract and issue immediate apologies. Dr. Farhana Sultana, a professor at Syracuse University and a fellow-PhD. of Gilley’s at Princeton was not satisfied with mere retraction. She encouraged protestors at Portland State to demand his ouster and took to Facebook to call for Dr. Gilley to have his PhD formally revoked.

Meanwhile, fifteen other academics associated with The Third World Quarterly immigrated away by resigning from the editorial board in protest of the offending article being published. Again, they disagree with anyone’s right to disagree. All the while, they talk about loving Free Speech while arguing in favor of censorship.

We all subscribe to the principle of freedom of speech and the value of provocation in order to generate critical debate. However, this cannot be done by means of a piece that fails to meet academic standards of rigour and balance by ignoring all manner of violence, exploitation and harm perpetrated in the name of colonialism (and imperialism) and that causes offence and hurt and thereby clearly violates that very principle of free speech.

So they all condemned Dr. Gilley as a !RACIST! Worse yet, they called him a !FACIST! And as the ne plus ultra, they even claimed he was — get this — a member of the !ALT-RIGHT! I vote to deny he’s Alt-Right. None of us would be caught dead accepting tenure from Portland State University. Even at double the going salary. But that not withstanding, he’s done an awesome job of ripping the lid off of Lefty Academic hell and letting us all stare at the Boschescape and all that crawled around thereupon. Retraction Watch perhaps describes the power washing of his paper out of TWQ as well as anyone else.

I’ve never heard of an academic article prompting credible death threats against the editor of the journal in which it was published, let alone a journal withdrawing an article on the basis of such threats. Have others? This is a disturbing development, which I hope remains, if not unique, highly unusual.

As for Dr. Gilley, he has proven to us all that even Neil Young could accidentally get one right. Gilley is done. He knows he is done. The principals he argued for are like a thing out of season. They are the rains falling on fields already fallow for the season. In his final act of defiance he blazed through the turgid, stifling atmosphere as a a meteorite that slammed into the fetid swamp of progressive intolerance. Far better this man burn out than fade away.

As Google Fires Damore, The Left Loses Its Victimhood Card

Monday, August 7th, 2017

Bloomberg News has confirmed that Google has fired James Damore, the author of a memorandum praising diversity but criticizing political correctness and diversity quotas:

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Google followed the typical pattern of criticizing the memorandum, encouraging the buildup of rage against it, talking about how the controversy hurt them, and finally dismissing the writer for failure to groupthink, abruptly confirming all of his accusations about the instability and dangers of political correctness.

Witness the timeline. First, the press attempts to establish a backstory suggesting that this is an event like several others, which despite being unproven are cited as fact, and are used to associate criticism of diversity with actual bad behavior:

The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Pao’s gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say they’ve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles.

Note that some of this is simply lie; saying that someone “lost his job in June amid scandals” implies a causal relationship, when in fact Kalanick was fired for something else entirely.

Next, the company begins to assemble a hive mind:

Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee.

…After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore’s views and reaffirmed the company’s stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

…Following the memo’s publication, multiple executives shared an article from a senior engineer who recently left the company, Yonatan Zunger. In the blog post, Zunger said that based on the context of the memo, he determined that he would “not in good conscience” assign any employees to work with its author.

With this setup, it was clear that only one outcome could occur, and this was the outcome that James Damore surely anticipated when he decided he would rather take his Harvard degree and work for a non-neurotic company instead, and decided to go out with a bang and gain himself an audience among realists rather than just fade away. He is now a celebrity and has the ability to write further on these topics and get paid well to do so.

The reason that this was predictable is that firing someone for wrongthink is not rare, but Typical Leftist Behavior. They always do this. As Hunter Wallace writes about AirBnB, another private company, choosing to deny accommodations to people attending the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, the Left have become the Establishment:

The Left now believes that all their old slogans like “non-discrimination, “non-violence,” “tolerance,” “free speech,””civil rights” and “equal rights … those things only belong to them now. The so-called “civil rights organizations” spend most of their time these days engaging in blacklisting, no-platforming, encouraging job discrimination and getting events and hotel reservations cancelled. Ironically, they have changed places with their old segregationist foes and have come to embrace their tactics.

Back in the 1960s, “civil rights activists” argued for opening up public accommodations to everyone. Today, *woke progressives* argue for just the opposite and high five AirBnb when it engages in housing discrimination. They cheer on violence, censorship, intolerance, blacklisting (which they used to call McCarthyism) and riot over free speech and freedom of assembly. They demand that Christian bakers and florists cater to gay weddings though. That’s “civil rights” now.

When the Left was starting its takeover of our civilization, it played the victim card by claiming it was being censored, oppressed and persecuted. This enabled it to gain sympathy among the oblivious middle classes, and made it a story that fit into the Enlightenment™-era narrative which says that individual humans are oppressed by any restraints on them like, you know, social order, moral and behavioral standards, and any values system which leads to a hierarchy.

With the end of WWII effectively destroying any political system but liberal democracy, and the fall of the Soviet Union removing any reminder that Leftism needed to be limited, the Left has run free throughout the West, and now that they are in positions of power, they are still playing the victimhood card but are actually victimizers. “The Leftist cries out as he strikes you!”

With one of the top companies in the world acting on behalf of Leftism, however, that victim card no longer has any credit on it. In fact, it has become clear to people that just like in the French Revolution and Soviet Union, Leftism has accelerated to full domination and subjugation mode. We have reached totalitarianism not through the Right, but through the Left.

As noted by renowned political thinker Samuel Huntington, this process is part of the rejection of ideology and its replacement with natural orders like tribe, faith and caste. People have now seen the end results of Leftism, and that liberal democracy always goes that way, and so now they seem themselves as the victims and the Leftists — including lapdog government, media and corporations like Google — as the oppressors.

How Political Correctness Paired With “The Customer Is Always Right” To Make the New Totalitarianism

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

As the Alt Right struggles to find its new direction while other Right-wing movements fade away, some of us offer a radical piece of advice: it should face the grim fact that our downfall has come through our own bad decisions, which arose from a selfishness and desire for power that led us to deny the natural order of life, and so our solution lies in undoing these bad decisions by replacing them with healthier goals.

For us to do this, it makes sense to inspect in depth the mistakes of the past so that we can recognize in each a fundamental principle, and through that, avoid repeating that principle in a new form. Principles are invisible; they can only be found by understanding the structure of an idea. They repeat in entirely different-looking forms, and when we do not recognize them, they cause us to repeat the same mistakes.

What rankles the Alt Right begins with a typical Leftist behavior, namely the tendency to change thought by making certain methods or ideas taboo. When you cannot use the appropriate method or idea, any given task or issue becomes “inverted,” or comes to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning because the thought process required to understand it is prohibited but its inverse is not. Language shifts and soon, everything in society is upside-down, and nothing means what it should.

One of the prime methods for this in our present time is the issue against which the Alt Right stacks “free speech”: political correctness, or the habit of making certain topics, notions and words off-limits in order to invert the meaning of the issues to which they refer. One explanation of why this is destructive comes from a striking critique based in utility, not morality:

[I] agree with Peter Thiel that political correctness is important in sustaining the stagnation of the West. It’s not even the particular topics that can’t be discussed. It’s the cowardice and the getting in the habit of constantly watching what you are saying that leads to a suppression of intellectual daring and genuinely creative thought.

Early on here I was named by a man who made a living from wind energy as one of the top 10 climate deniers on Quora. A strange honour, I suppose, but also just a little sinister. One had the sense that there was a gunning for such people because one by one they were banned and suspended. Baiting people into saying something that could be considered a violation of the cult of nice, something easy to achieve when you are close to a moderator. Probably it would have happened to me too, except I mostly write about other topics and some people liked what I wrote. If I worked for a big company with a bureaucratic social media policy, possibly it would have been much more effective.

The context is people have proposed criminal sanctions against those with differing views about causation of fluctuations in climate and what if anything we should do about it. Combined with the social ganging up I described above, do you not think this is likely to have a chilling effect on peoples’ expressions of ideas in this domain, and perhaps also in others.

Most people are smart enough not to disagree with the consensus of the group. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Group think isn’t some esoteric mildly interesting phenomenon but is at work every day in human groups, large and small. If there had been more people like Michael Burry, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened. But, as Peter Thiel says, what does it say about us as a society that it’s the mildly autistic and more that are able to go against group norms and those who are more neurorypical don’t do that. It wasn’t always like this, and it probably won’t be in future.

A healthy society needs to be able to tolerate dissent, even about painful or controversial topics. The way to regulate conversation is to replace bureaucracy with good manners, because those can be much more adapted to changing and heterogeneous situations and are less susceptible to being exploited by opportunistic players that game the system. See also Scott Welch’s response below, about which I make no further comment. Except to say that the language used in his answer and in the comments is a pretty nice illustration that Quora does not appear to be serious about creating a forum where people are expected to exhibit nice and respectful behaviour (let alone good manners). BNBR is used as a weapon to shut out dissenting views (see Solzhenitsyn below) – but there’s a lack of seriousness about it. It’s one instrument but one that’s wielded according to the belief systems – and, more problematically, values – of the people running Quora.

Solzhenitsyn at Harvard: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart):

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to flock together and shut off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if the most pro-PC people accept these arguments or not, because the world is already changing. People increasingly value an unpolished authenticity, and I don’t think anything is going to stop this new trend from developing now it has gotten started.

This is a basic utility argument: when some ideas are taboo, it prevents them from being discussed at all, and this is enforced by decentralized totalitarianism where the majority of people refuse to engage with these ideas from fear of ostracism and retribution, so they simply fall into a memory hole and disappear entirely from public consciousness.

Equality itself gives rise to this phenomenon. When all people are equal, all viewpoints must be tolerated, but this quickly comes into conflict with the noticing of natural inequalities — mostly between social classes, but also including sex, ethnic group, race and sexual preference — which means that some of the equal people will feel marginalized.

Compound this with the fundamental method of equality, which is to “make” people equal by Robin Hood style actions involving taking from the more-successful and giving to the less-successful, or in other words, defending the underdog as a categorical practice. Whenever someone more-successful is in conflict with someone less-successful, the more-successful person is attacked.

Aha. This gives us the root of political correctness, which is that if one of the equal citizens finds himself being observed to be unequal, the right way to fix this is to penalize the person who notices the inequality. Given the power of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means that only those with the brains to observe reality semi-correctly are censored, and idiocy is given center stage in the ultimate inversion.

Naturally, this leads to domination of the less-successful — who are most likely lower in caste, intelligence, wealth, power, class and competence — over the success. The weak eat the strong because the Crowd enables the weak. Witness this in action in an otherwise advanced legal system where noticing caste differences is a crime:

Calling a Dalit by his caste with a view to insulting him or her is an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), the Supreme Court has ruled, upholding the conviction of two persons in Tamil Nadu.

…”The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word chamar denotes a specific caste but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone).

…”In our opinion, uses of the words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today ,” the bench said.

Equality always goes this way. Diversity just makes it easy because it enables the herd to analogize caste to race, and in our modern egalitarian agenda, racial discrimination is the worst sin ever. This may go back to the days when Americans allied with China and had non-whites serving in its military, and so had to ban discrimination as it threatened loyalty to the State.

Egalitarianism itself mandates diversity. If all people are equal, all races are equal. And nothing seems more discriminatory and inegalitarian than singling someone out for something he cannot control, namely a condition he was born with such as race or caste. Equality must be achieved, and to do that, all differences between people must be eliminated or hidden, in this case by social taboo.

What this means is that in our minds, the idea of equality becomes a runaway train that rolls right over every aspect of life. This egalitarian outlook leads to a type of inward focus that becomes a paralyzing narcissism:

The cause of our narcissism is equality. Not equality before the law, where everyone is bound by the same legal code. That is a fundamental right and necessary for justice, freedom, and happiness in a democracy. I’m referring to equality of conditions—our economic well-being and social status, the material aspects of equality Europeans experienced when they broke from the caste system of their homeland, shedding aristocracy and an impenetrable class structure that denied them access to material wealth and limitless possibilities.

…But equality, like freedom, has its dark side. Just as too much freedom leads to libertinism, anarchy, and destruction, equality (or the expectation of equality) leads to entitlement, self-centeredness, isolation, idealism of human perfectibility and progress, autonomous individualism, materialism, and ultimately despotism.

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “One must recognize that equality, which introduces great goods into the world, nevertheless suggests to men very dangerous instincts…it tends to isolate them from one another and to bring each of them to be occupied with himself alone. It opens their souls excessively to the love of material enjoyments.” It makes him a narcissist.

Who is de Tocqueville restating here? He is channeling Plato, who famously said:

The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals.

Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women.

At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master.

With these two views of the same thing, we see the problem with equality: without focus on something outside of the self, people become obsessed by the self like a golden calf or the One True Ring, and pursue it with a mania like addiction, because like all good dependencies it provides brief relief from noticing drab reality, and then as the situation settles back into normalcy, requires more of the drug.

Diversity serves this pressure for inward focus by enacting a pincer strategy on civilization: one claw of the pincer is increased alienation and atomization, and the other is a need for self-validation in order to keep the addiction going. People simultaneously flee the public sphere and cling zombie-like to ideology.

All of this arises from the need to “create” equality through banning negative but true observations about the lower castes. Diversity happens in parallel with the maniacal, Soviet need to enforce equality for other groups — women, homosexuals, transgenders, odd religions, the retarded — because both originate from the same root in egalitarianism, and naturally and inevitably develop into these special interest “identity” politics.

This identity in turn reflects a lack of actual identity, because egalitarianism has eaten that right up, and instead a need to find some reason why one is special and hopefully a victim, because that way the individual deserves to be made more-equal through wealth and power transfer from the more successful. This is the crisis of identity:

But the truly notable thing about today is not so much the obsession with identity – it’s the instability of identity. Humans have been hunting for identity for centuries. The instinct to define ourselves, to project ourselves into the world, is strong. And there’s nothing wrong with it. What’s new today is that identity has become an incredibly subjective phenomenon. ‘I identify as…’ Where once an individual’s identity was informed, or shaped, by experience and belief, through an engagement in the public sphere or with a party or association, today identities are self-consciously and often defensively constructed. The NYT, in its description of 2015 as the year of identity, asked: ‘How do you identify? [W]hat trait or aspect of your being is central to your idea of yourself, and your relationship to the world?’ The keyword here is your. The NYT doesn’t ask ‘What are you?’ or ‘Who are you?’, which would speak to a strong sense of being something; it asks what ‘aspect of your being’ is most important to ‘your idea of yourself’. ‘Being’ is treated almost as something external to the individual, a thing to be mined for ‘traits’ we might identify with. Identity is not something we are or we experience; it is a technically cultivated category, built from ‘traits’ and ‘aspects’ to give ‘an idea of yourself’.

What the NYT and many others describe as new era of identity politics is in fact an era in which the historical, traditional underpinnings of identity have been ruptured, or even destroyed, unleashing an often desperate search for new identities, a rush for self-identification, for shallow identity construction. The subjectivity of human identity in the 21st century is striking, and alarming. Today, to feel something is to be something.

Arising from the nature of equality itself, identity politics speaks to a need for self-validation, which is the second claw of the pincer. There is no identity outside of the self, so people look for a group to join, but since this is not related to any actual membership, it becomes entirely symbolic. The individual wants a position from which they are able to justify their narcissism.

Not only that, but any existing identity that is actual threatens their ability to choose any identity they want, which in turn limits them to being what they are, which violates equality. The manic, all-devouring instinct of Leftism toward culture, religion, heritage, race, ethnic group, customs, calendar, cuisine and even symbols comes from this need to be the determiner of their own identity.

Equality makes people into crazed individuals, gazing inward and finding nothing, thus trying on different identities as a means of being special enough and marginalized enough to have power in a society that is constantly pushing people downward in order to enforce equality. The root of this churn lies in the nature of Leftism itself:

It is Liberalism that believes in the Autonomous Individual, it is Liberalism that always hides its real beliefs, it is Liberalism that has turned us from Nations into mere economies.

…Lying is the only way they can gain support so they do. They never talk about the Autonomous Individual instead they talk about freedom, about freedom of choice and other such nonsense. Why?

Because the Autonomous Individual has no need of a country, or a family, or a God, or anything. It is a life of hopelessness and pointlessness and they know it. They don’t talk about it because they see a perfect world and the Autonomous Individual lives in that perfect world. But if they went to the next election talking about people getting to live in a perfect world people would reject them and they know that. They never talk about where their philosophy leads because to any sane person it holds absolutely no appeal. Who wants to live a life were they have no family, no roots, no history and no future, only today repeated endlessly until death?

Political correctness is the vanguard of Leftism. Like the outer shell of a virus, it merges with the wall of a cell, making it think that the virus is part of itself. Then, the virus enters and reprograms that cell with its own DNA, so that the cell propagates the virus, sacrificing itself in the effort.

Pair that with “Keeping Up With The Joneses,” which in this case is symbolic, and people begin excluding dangerous ideas while repeating obvious lies, just so that they stay relevant and are part of the in-group that gets all the wealth and power. They will eventually adopt a victimhood pose through the identity Olympics, and act out increasingly extreme versions of egalitarian idealism.

Enter another cliché: “The Customer is Always Right.” This is the basis of mercantile middle class ethics and explains how societies are taken over by bad ideas. Bad ideas are always popular because they are simpler, and therefore make the person considering the idea feel more powerful for having this simple, clear and absolute bottom line. No merchant will refuse a customer the right to purchase an illusion. For this reason, business and law follow public opinion, and when enough people are keeping up with the Joneses by being politically correct, the governments and corporations follow suit.

From this, all of the evils of civilization decline flow, and the society goes out like Rome, anesthetized to its own decline because the way that individuals succeed is by jumping on the bandwagon. What is right, is wrong. All values have been inverted. And so the people of that society play follow the leader all the way to their eventual doom.

Our only hope of avoiding this is not to fight political correctness, but to orient our civilization toward a different direction entirely, one in which what is true, right, sensible, logical and leads to the good is more important than our selves and our individualism. This requires a breakaway group who will rise above the rest, who seek authenticity so thoroughly that they aspire to a society of virtue:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

The primary idea of virtue is that we, as individuals, are less important than the patterns of reality that show us how to adapt to our world. The inversion of this idea, individualism, arises from the Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ and holds that the human individual is the new order that replaces nature, and therefore we can ignore both the physical aspects of nature that our wealth and technology have conquered, as well as the pattern-order of nature that determines what thrives and what dies in the long term.

Virtue commands that we eschew individualism in favor of purpose, and that this purpose must be like that of nature, which is an aristocratic and relentlessly aggressive drive toward constant improvement. Our society beat back the wolves and starvation, but it cannot beat the cycles of time and the logical way in which nature works. Virtue is the ultimate realism.

Right now, our civilization has fallen, which was formalized in the World Wars. All of our decisions leading up to those were based on individualism. If we want to rise again, and at the core of the Alt Right is a desire that we do, we will need to rediscover our virtue and discard the individualism that leads to political correctness and eventually, downfall.

Civilization Depends On Lack Of Control

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

Stop me if you have heard this old joke. A drunk Soviet citizen takes a box labeled TURNIPS to his neighbor and offers it for sale. They open it up, and it is full of stones. “If the Party says they are turnips, they are turnips, comrade,” says the drunk. “Unless you want me to report you for calling the Party a liar?”

All human groups — civilizations, church clubs, businesses, rings of friends — collapse the same way: they become successful, and to regulate themselves, set up rules and procedures which then become more important than the intended results of those rules and procedures. The letter of the law wins out over the spirit of the law. After all, you can either call the stones turnips or become an enemy.

These internal systems can be called control, which is the habit of making people into a fungible commodity so they can be forced to obey the same instructions, mainly for the defensive purpose of keeping them from destabilizing the group. Control, like any good virus, quickly escapes its masters and becomes dedicated only to itself, addictive like the power of the One Ring in Lord Of The Rings.

In that story, the ring represents a force that is seductive to men and then takes over their minds. It grants them great power, including invisibility, but the more they use it, the more their will is bent to its own. This is a metaphor for control, which is the trap into which most civilizations fall.

William S. Burroughs wrote extensively about the nature of control:

[W]ords are still the principal instruments of control. Suggestions are words. Persuasions are words. Orders are words. No control machine so far devised can operate without words, and any control machine which attempts to do so relying entirely on external force or entirely on physical control of the mind will soon encounter the limits of control.

…When there is no more opposition, control becomes a meaningless proposition. It is highly questionable whether a human organism could survive complete control. There would be nothing there. No persons there. Life is will (motivation) and the workers would no longer be alive, perhaps literally. The concept of suggestion as a complete technique presupposes that control is partial and not complete. You do not have to give suggestions to your tape recorder nor subject it to pain and coercion or persuasion.

…Consider a control situation: ten people in a lifeboat. two armed self-appointed leaders force the other eight to do the rowing while they dispose of the food and water, keeping most of it for themselves an doling out only enough to keep the other eight rowing. The two leaders now need to exercise control to maintain an advantageous position which they could not hold without it. Here the method of control is force – the possession of guns. Decontrol would be accomplished by overpowering the leaders and taking their guns. This effected, it would be advantageous to kill them at once. So once embarked on a policy of control, the leaders must continue the policy as a matter of self-preservation. Who, then, needs to control others but those who protect by such control a position of relative advantage? Why do they need to exercise control? Because they would soon lose this position and advantage and in many cases their lives as well, if they relinquished control.

Burroughs may err slightly in that he sees control more as a physical state, and not a psychological one. As Plato points out, it is possible to have a strong leader whose intent is noble and whose intelligence is realistic, thus he accomplishes (mostly) what he aims for. This leader has “control,” but it is not really control. It is leadership, a variety of something covered later in this essay.

For example, consider a lifeboat full of eight dangerous schizophrenics and two leaders. The leaders will need to force the others to row because there are only two leaders, and many relatively expendable people; this way, the boat will reach its destination and the highest number will survive. Even more, since sanity is more valuable than insanity, it is important that the two get there, as a future is found in them but not in the schizophrenics, whose condition is highly correlated with genetic inheritance.

This shows us the essence of control: it is not power itself, but the desire to use power for no purpose other than itself or those who wield it. As Burroughs shows with his metaphor, those who use power for no purpose except themselves are soon thrown into a defensive role, at which point they must enforce control in order to avoid being destroyed.

Tolkien’s metaphor is portrayed most powerfully in the movies, where the ring seduces those who encounter it with words that reveal to them simultaneously their doubts about themselves and the world, and promises easier answers than the obvious and challenging task before them. Men are destroyed by wanting to use the ring to solve their problems instead of actually solving the problems directly.

In this way, the power of language is revealed. Words have a stunning power because they are tokens that evoke images in the minds of those to whom they are spoken, and there is no guarantee that those images correspond to those in the mind of the speaker. This occurs through the power of symbolism, or the ability of one detail to stand for the whole. The word can mean a single detail excluding others, and speaker and listener often have different sets of those details that provide the image in their head, meaning that the listener is blind to many of the properties that are implied. There are also lies, which may be the oldest and worst of human vices.

As is frequent on this blog, a citation from Tom Wolfe completes the circuit:

Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

…No evolutionist has come up with even an interesting guess as to when speech began, but it was at least 11,000 years ago, which is to say, 9000 B.C. It seems to be the consensus . . . in the notoriously capricious field of evolutionary chronology . . . that 9000 B.C. was about when the human beast began farming, and the beast couldn’t have farmed without speech, without being able to say to his son, “Son, this here’s seeds. You best be putting ’em in the ground in rows ov’ere like I tell you if you wanna git any ears a corn this summer.”

…One of Homo loquax’s first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax’s nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago.

Worse than simply being manipulative, language has utility. In doing so, it allows those who could not succeed to learn from others and so endure despite lacking the understanding behind the words. This creates a rich environment for manipulation, because then there is a mass that does not understand depth, only the surface comprised of the simple images in their minds evoked by language.

If anything marks the transition between the last century and the present, it is a gradual rejection of the power of language to control. People are recognizing that words do not have inherent meanings, which means they are only meaningful insofar as speaker and listener have the same mental images, and this depends on who they are, and cannot be “educated” into them.

Through this mechanism, humankind returns to something like the order of nature. Language is useless, so instead we agree on a goal which cannot be transmitted through language, like the amorphous idea of a great civilization rivaling that of the ancients. Then, we rely on people to reach that goal by independent action, reflecting their ability and therefore where they belong in the hierarchy.

Contrarian to this large evolutionary step, the doctrine of egalitarianism serves as the basis of control. It establishes what cannot be said by making a rule that all people must be equal, so anything above equal becomes taboo. Wherever humanity is held back, you will find control saying that we cannot get ahead of ourselves, because not everyone is up to speed yet.

The latest from the forces of control is “political correctness,” a type of speech code that shapes thought toward egalitarianism and therefore prevents critique of the failing 1789-2016 programs which implemented egalitarian ideas as policy. The backlash against political correctness is beginning with fervor, and may have elected the current president of the United States:

According to the website—the project of mathematician Spencer Greenberg—believing “there is too much political correctness in this country” was the second most reliable predictor of whether a given person intended to vote for Trump. The only better predictor was party affiliation: despite an abnormal campaign featuring an abnormal candidate, it remained the case that the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for the Republican candidate, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the Democratic candidate.

But being anti-P.C. correlated more strongly with being pro-Trump than just about anything else: it beat out social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration as predictive tendencies.

“Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyone’s children,” Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University, told Politico in the recent article that made me aware of Greenberg’s survey data. “Many of them think that they are the victims, they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their animosities are related to that worldview.”

Political correctness represents the attempt by the dying egalitarian Establishment to hold on to power after it has lost the hearts and minds of its people.

Egalitarianism promised “freedom” from the “tyranny” of the monarchy, and instead delivered a string of ideological wars beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and extending into World War Two. Since that time, the West has fought a cold war against egalitarian totalitarians, and divided itself between different shades of egalitarianism among its own political powers.

The point of political correctness is to prevent the criticism of egalitarianism by noticing certain facts that egalitarianism will not acknowledge, and so quickly became a war on truth itself. As in witch-hunts, political correctness gives power to the people making the accusation, which is assumed to be true because no one wants to in turn become a target of the inquisitors.

In turn that creates a situation where necessary truths are denied, forcing ordinary people to become extremists once they realize this system is designed to perpetuate a lie and suppress truth:

In January 2014, the commander of a French military academy rejected the master’s thesis of an elite German army officer under his charge for its extremist argument that human rights could lead to the genocide of Western races.

“If this was a French participant on the course, we would remove him,” he told the young officer’s German superiors.

An academic hired to review the thesis told senior officers in the German army, the Bundeswehr, that it included racist and radical nationalist content, but they chose not to formally discipline the man as they did not want to jeopardize the career of a high-flying recruit.

Societies that suppress potentially truthful observations because those observations may threaten control are by nature totalitarian societies, no matter what methods they use, including “peaceful” ones like ostracism. You either obey control, or your life is destroyed by obliteration of your career, reputation, livelihood and chance to have friends and meet potential mates. The forces of political correctness are using natural selection to “weed out” people with unconventional opinions.

As a result, the West now has created a situation where it is pursuing a path to doom and has eliminated any ability to notice that this doom is upon us. This gives us a binary choice: we either fight this system, or accept our own destruction. We are going to go out just like the Soviets, unwilling to alter a failing direction because of our pretense of being correct according to control:

Totalitarianism has nothing necessarily to do with violence (as Aldous Huxley perceived in his Brave New World of 1932 – and to equate totalitarianism with violence was an error by Orwell). For totalitarianism ‘whatever works’ is the guide.

Thus we now, in the West, live in a highly totalitarian society, in which most people’s thoughts are controlled most of the time – by a combination of indoctrination during childhood and youth, the unified-linked bureaucracy of the government and the workplace, the mass media and its addictiveness, and a legal system which explicitly includes thought crimes (what else are ‘hate crimes’?).

Those who wish to resist this totalitarianism have made a fatal error. Instead of demanding an end to control, they have chosen a false target through an ersatz opposite to control. They choose “freedom,” which is a form of egalitarianism, which means that as soon as control is overthrown, it will be reinstated through the manipulation that produced it the first time.

The opposite of control is not liberty, but cooperation. Cooperation requires a purpose and principles, so that people can measure their actions by how they help to achieve that goal. With cooperation, people take on unequal roles toward the same end for the benefit not of individuals, but of society as an organic whole, as if it were an organism.

Without cooperation, people go in many different directions at once, and this opens the door to manipulation. Since the chaos impedes life, people will begin manipulating one another with language. The virus will spread, and soon everyone will manipulate each other, which makes manipulation the only way to have power, and by natural selection elects to leadership those who are the best manipulators.

The Climate Change Resulting From Mass Immigration

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

The biggest problem with Modern American Democracy is that it puts power, resources and opportunity in the hands of vast numbers of people who have nothing to lose if these valuables are wasted and are generally immune from many of the negative externalities. This is taken to an extreme mathematical limit with the status of illegal immigrants in so-called sanctuary cities. Ann Coulter gets things about 75% right in her explanation of the problem below.

Mass Third World immigration is a triple whammy for the environment because:

1.Millions more people are tromping through our country;
2.The new people do not share Americans’ love of nature and cleanliness; and
3.We’re not allowed to criticize them.

All three of these statements by Ms. Coulter are factually accurate. Problem 1 would probably be survivable and two could be rapidly changed. The real nut of the problem here is point number three. You are never allowed to criticize these non-white people without being called ¡RACIST! The video below shows what Ann is discussing.

So the evidence is right Governor Jerry Brown’s face every day. There are too many people in California with no ties or loyalty to the place and therefore, they predictably trash the places they rent or squat in. The state is an ongoing environmental disaster. Yet the people trashing it also vote him into office so he has to fight environmental degradation in a way that leaves them blameless and that pins the tail on a different culprit. All bad things are caused by Global Warming which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Evil Republican Party.

The L A Times interviewed California Governor Brown about the states climate campaign with the results presented in an April 15, 2017 article entitled “I’m not giving up hope” which revealed his frustrations, concerns and views about lack of support among other states regarding California’s climate change program.

Reputable scientists with decades in the field don’t buy the politically expedient Climate Scientology.*

Governor Brown’s claim that higher temperatures are being caused by man made CO2 emissions is far from certain as addressed by climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry who documented flaws and failures of climate models claiming that man made CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures. Her study found that: “The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century will actually evolve.”

And yet Gerry Brown’s eyes are not lying anywhere near as much as he is. The environment is being torn to pieces – by the very immigrants Gerry Brown finds it politically expedient to restock the population of his state with.

Writing in an environmental journal at New York University, Rosa P. Oakes described the “reprehensible” damage being done to “towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations” by illegals. With accompanying photos, she noted that the immigrants’ litter included “abandoned vehicles … used needles, drug paraphernalia, plastic grocery bags, paper products, empty water containers, blankets, clothing, used disposable diapers, among other things.”

Maybe Ann Coulter is about 98% correct instead. We can have a low-skilled immigrant nation that is environmentally toxic or a well-bonded nation of common culture that loves the ground they stand on. People who are committed to a nation love its natural beauty and husband its natural resources with diligent responsibility. People who YOLO it over the border, send the money back home and then leave when they feel the welfare system isn’t being generous enough have no reason to care whether or not they crap on the streets.

Mass human migrations and the cultural disintegrations that predictably come with them are gargantuan anthropogenic environmental disasters. It would take an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, to pollute the environment of The American West more than large masses of humanity with no skin in the game and no concern for the communities they are just passing through. “Give a hoot! Don’t Pollute!” was more accurate than the old cartoon owl in the commercials ever realized.


* — Even if they, like Dr. Curry, believe the planet is currently warming somewhat regardless of the fraudulent government temperature records.

Academic Political Correctness Dies At Mizzou

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

What happens to a Cathedral if nobody goes there to pray? The precipitous decline of The Episcopal Church, USA gives us an idea. It started as a healthy Upper Middle Class faith in much of the Middle Atlantic. Recently, I couldn’t even find it on one of the nosey EEOC forms that asks none-of-your-bidness questions about your race, language and religion. It was lumped in under “Other” with the snake-handlers and Scientologists. The process follows below.

1) At first, they get more radical and attempt to preach a “Social Gospel.” This turns off some of the regular church-goers who seek other options. Like Nietzche’s Preacher in the forrest, they drone on as if someone is still listening and express a willingness to be patient until these people understand their brilliance.

2) Then they double-down. As they see fewer people in the pews, they assume they just aren’t cool enough and hip enough. ECUSA went in for the gay bishops and progressive causes. It dialed back all the boring God stuff.

3) They then denounce the people who left for leaving and accuse them of disloyalty. The people denounced then formally break with the church and attempt to establish an alternative place of worship that perseves what the original members liked while filtering out the progressivism.

4) The church then denounces the schismists as heretics and moral cretins. While meanwhile, their coolness descends into ridiculous self-destruction.

5) The organization dies for all intents and purposes and is forgotten by almost all.

Could a similar five-step Doom-Cycle overtake the Moldbuggian Cathedral of Leftist control? Perhaps the Post-BLM fate of Missouri University gives us a possible test-case.

1) Missouri University catered to the #BLM student radicals. The University President resigned to appease the student demonstrators.

2) Mizzou saw its enrollment drop by 900 freshmen the next year and began to accelerate a plan to close old dormitories, since they wouldn’t have residents. The University has signed a temporary acting chancellor to replace the one who took an opportunity to go elsewhere and escape. They are quietly, very quietly, interviewing replacements. Meanwhile, their Freshman enrollment continues to decline.

For the Academic Cathedral to start following the dying religions down, they would have to lose their credentialization monopoly. We see that happening with online universities, code bootcamps and other sorts of alternative ways to professionally credentialize rising in popularity.

The step that would knock the Cathedral off its pedestal would be for major employers outside of the government to start prefering the alternate professional credentials to the university diploma. Once that occurs, people actually incur economic disadvantages* from kow-towing to the academic end of the cathedral.

Hence, the Academic bastions of political correctness are increasingly seeking remedies to this sort of thing. They want load debt forgiven and college to be free. They vituperate and demean for profit colleges and alternate certification routes. This is to preserve their monopoly on social acceptability and better renumerated employment. This is the cornerstone of their power. This is what keeps them from being obliterated for kow-towing to the whack-jobs. Blow this basis up, and declines in enrollment can occur at any university that goes full SJW. At that point, one of the three fundamental foundations of The Cathedral is eroded and destroyed.


* — Beyond ridiculous loan debts.

No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination by Scott Greer

Friday, May 12th, 2017


Scott Greer
No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination
192 pages, WND Books, $12 (2017)

As the new millennium dawned, it became clear that a sea change in attitudes among the people of the West was underway. While in the long term this seems to be a shift from bureaucratic and artificial societies to more organic and hierarchical ones, the rising battlefield presented political correctness as a target of opportunity because in recent years, it has been the primary weapon of the Leftist takeover of Western Civilization.

This phenomenon has become most visible on the campus, where a new cadre of seemingly all-powerful student groups are demanding — and winning — increasing concessions from school administrators, usually because no one wants to appear to be allied with horrible racists, sexists and classists in our increasingly Leftist cultural milieu. Scott Greer tackles this topic with a book written for everyday conservatives but which applies the wisdom of the underground right through a careful recounting of the events leading to this new norm.

Greer begins by diving into the most recent events at universities which show the insanity of political correctness, then explores related fields in race-based politics and false rape accusations, then delves deeper into the theory and political goals of the PC movement. In doing so, he points out that PC does not aim toward positive goals, but negative ones, namely shattering the power of white people, conservatives, realists and other non-Leftists in the university setting.

In other words, it is a classic power grab through public shaming of dissidents — but in this case, your skin is your uniform, and you can be a dissident through simply failing to agree with what the PC overlords say; actively opposing them is not necessary. By implication and revelation of a conspiracy of details, Greer unveils the fundamentally Soviet nature of Political Correctness.

What’s happening at campuses is not an isolated affair — it is a result of what is happening in America as a whole. The sense of shared values and culture among Americans is vanishing rapidly, at the same time many feel isolated from their communities and families. Mass immigration has dramatically altered our country’s demographics, while multiculturalism has created a confusing landscape of competing visions for what it means to be an American. Many citizens see our national society as one of millions of alienated atoms living in a continental strip mall, not interconnected denizens living happily together in one proud country.

Thus, they turn to alternative forms of identity. A real American identity — one not entirely composed of platitudes about “equality and opportunity — is becoming a thing of the past. The ones who cling to it, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s and the press’s treatment of Donald Trump’s supporters, are considered racist buffoons who need to die off. The momentum of the present is veering toward tribalism, not unity. And the only thing keeping all the tribes of the Left unified right now is their shared animosity toward whites. (159)

We can see Greer’s thesis here: the success of the Left in advancing class warfare and multiculturalism has destroyed any unifying sense of culture, and so groups are going their own way, which has fragmented the Left, requiring that it cook up a new enemy in order to unite its ranks, and it has chosen “privilege theory”: because white people have “privilege” in historically-white societies, they are the only ones who can be racist, and therefore — by implication, of course — the only way to end racism is to eliminate whites.

This is a more complex analysis of the “anti-racism = anti-white” meme that has been floating around, but Greer is correct go into the nuance because it reveals how Leftism is a kind of inertia which by destroying existing social order, creates conditions under which it has no choice but to explode like a supernova and become fully totalitarian. The success of the Left is its actual enemy, but it needs a scapegoat, just like the Communists needed kulaks and the Nazis needed Jews.

By taking this balanced approach, Greer avoids tackling the historical questions which at this point are so muddied by centuries of political fighting that there is no way to even approach them in an unbiased manner, and instead looks at political correctness the way a sociologist would. Increasing Balkanization of the West means the need for a scapegoat, and PC found it in white men.

In order to reach this point, the book narrates some of the recent history of political correctness, including various incidents which — when removed from the context of the Leftist media — stand out as appalling. Even though to those of us who recognize a consistency in Leftist behavior from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union, the blatant inversion of concepts such as “fairness” and “equality” into persecution of those who do not need these things shows us the human animal at its worst: a snarling beast, enraged that any may succeed, thus demanding that all be brought down to a lower level through the social power of the word “equality.”

The most important thing to remember is that the favored form of diversity isn’t necessarily “the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization,” as Merriam-Webster would put it. Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around. Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean “white only.” An all-black dorm is a sign of diversity, but an all-white fraternity is a sign of Jim Crow. That double standard is easier to understand once you think of higher education’s commitment to ethnic diversity as not one upholding the strict definition of the term. (16)

No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination maintains a thoroughly professional view of the situation, avoiding partisanship as much as possible, in order to dig far enough into the headlines to see the motivation behind political correctness and how it is being applied, which ordinary people will not hear from the media or from a single source.

Greer uses an investigative journalism approach. He begins with a single incident, then digs into similar incidents, then looks at the parties involved and their statements, and contrasts these to public statements made by schools and organizations. In doing so, the reader can witness the application of the theory sliding away from the theory as time goes on. The cognitive dissonance effect is erased through this method.

While No Campus For White Men uses a provocative title, it is in fact a mild book, with flashes of humor and cultured alertness to the actual goals of institutions versus what they have become scattered throughout. It makes for a quick read and a good refresher on the politically correct disasters of recent years. For any reader from innocent novice through cynical veteran, this book provides a cornerstone of a practical attack on PC culture.

Black Jesus and The Last Rhodesian

Saturday, April 29th, 2017

Dylan ¡STORMFRONT! Roof was a ¡CRIMINALNAZIH8TERPYSCHORACISTKILLER! On the other hand, we’ll quite never know what triggered poor Kori Ali Muhammad. It’s a total mystery. Poor Kori, he’s just misunderstood

A gunman who nicknamed himself ‘Black Jesus’ shot and killed three strangers in a bid to kill as many white people as possible, police said. During his rampage, Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, first walked up to a lorry and shot the man sitting in the passenger seat. He shot at another and missed, then hit a 37-year-old man walking on a pavement as he carried groceries. The final victim was shot dead in the car park of a charity building.

I mean just because he walked around wasting people solely for the color of their skin and their religious beliefs doesn’t make him a ¡RACIST! like Dylan ¡STORMFRONT! Roof. I mean come on. Let’s not trigger Islamaphobia or fear of a black planet. Don’t give off the funny vibe. While we can rule out the possibility that he doesn’t like Mondays, we just can’t speculate regarding the real reasons.

Never you mind that he had hate speech all over his Zuckerface page…

On what appeared to be his Facebook page, he repeatedly posted ‘#LetBlackPeopleGo’ and encouraged ‘black warriors’ to ‘mount up’. He wrote that his ‘kill rate increases tremendously on the other side’ and also posted about ‘white devils’.

We apparently learned nothing from Dylan Roof’s The Last Rhodesian web manifesto. When people post this crap, it’s at least worth taking a look at. Dylan may have started out “just kidding.” It may have originally just been a frustrated young man venting. But by the time he made a hideous demon out of himself at the African American Church he’d certainly talked himself into believing his own bull crap.

Kori ALi Muhammad not only spoke a similarly frightening language of illogical tribal hatred to Dylan Roof, but he gave far more previous indication of being a violent sociopath. If not detecting and preventing Dylan Roof’s shooting spree was a societal failure, than not intervening against Kori Ali Muhammad was criminal negligence.

Muhammad has a criminal history that includes arrests on weapons, drugs and false imprisonment charges and making terrorist threats. He had been associated with gangs but he was not a confirmed member, police say. Muhammad was charged in 2005 with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, court records show. Federal prosecutors said at the time that he was also in possession of a 9mm semi-automatic handgun and two rifles after being convicted of a felony. He claimed insanity and his lawyer requested a psychiatric examination, saying Muhammad ‘appeared eccentric with some bizarre beliefs’.

Despite his poverty and previous social and economic failures, Dylan Storm Roof was actually harder to see coming. Like Howard Brush Dean, he liked hanging around with his Black Friend. He actually made a show out of his interracial friendship. At least nobody will ever accuse “Black Jesus” of similar hypocrisy.

So why wasn’t anyone concerned over Kori Ali Muhhammad’s “bizarre beliefs?” They can’t be. Even though he was obviously a potential assassin and even more obvious in his irregularity than Dylan Storm Roof, we couldn’t profile. It would have been politically incorrect. It would have been racially biased.

We had to sit there and watch him gun people down first. In case you are not convinced that people who announce murderous intent on Facebook may well be serious and should be investigated if not arrested, please watch the YouTube below and keep the recent news of the week in mind. Political correctness gets people laid out.

Western Civilization Has Doomed Itself By Choosing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, April 5th, 2017

Western Civilization has cursed itself by implementing affirmative action as part of its culture

It may have been adopted out of good intentions and warm feelings. The reality never changes, however. Affirmative action is inevitably used as a weapon by minorities to extract free benefits at the expense of Western civilization.

It can be equated to self-flagellation in Catholic terms, or psychologically to ad nauseum self-critique of the once proud European individual.

Instead of balancing imperfection, Western man strove for perfection and in the process realized deep down how imperfect he really is. The Germans are a telling example, where their incredible individualist achievements resulted in a deep self-critique type of unintended flawed, even dark organizational culture. All their efforts to regain some stature keep on failing i.e. the European Monetary Union and Volkswagen’s fraudulent exhaust systems.

Another example is the famous Boer nation in Africa. They conquered an arid country resulting in cross-border ambitions which included UN sanctioned administration of Namibia and a successful British de-colonialization project in the 1960s. But in the process they realized deep down that they were/are imperfect resulting in the failed, but valiantly flawed attempt to transfer power to Mandela.

Boers remained the skunk, just like the Germans remained the Nazi.

They say that intelligent peoples are subdued by their known lack of knowledge, while dumb people are enamored by the same.

This self-curse is of course widespread in American culture. It reached a pinnacle when America literally elected an Affirmative Action President riding on the progressive wave of a soon-to-fail Mandela. Just like in Germany and South Africa, Americans suffer the same self-critique continuing even after their capitulation to Obama.

This is evident in the failed election polls that predicted a landslide Clinton victory. The reason polls failed is that people lied.  And the fact is, despite getting their secret wish fulfilled, they keep on lying. Further evidence of this is found in the unusually confused fake news stories where journalists, previously thinking that they were the only ones lying, now have to depend on a lying public.

The American culture will always be called progressive and they will suffer the same outcome as a result that Germans and Boers are suffering.  If one takes that Germans had a massive production machinery resource and Boers had a massive gold resource, then it could be said that America had a massive human resource.

This means that changing our method of managing these resources will not help because affirmative action grows to consume all available resources. What we tolerate increases. When we create policies that encourage free riding, and do so on the basis of presumed racial guilt, the group of takers will increase to sabotage the makers just enough to create collapse conditions.

Our only way out is through nihilism: an end to the politics of human intent, and a beginning to leadership by results. Affirmative action is destructive and will never reach an end date, but will only expand. This means that affirmative action has failed in terms of results, and needs to be abolished.

Once that form of guilt-mongering is out of the way, we can re-balance our political dialogue to establish a realistic self-critique instead of an overly-emotional one. But for this to happen, affirmative action first must die.

Recommended Reading