Re-reading Vernor Vinge’s sci-fi novella True Names, written in 1980, I just came across an amusingly prescient passage. (Edited here for brevity.) The time is a few decades in the future, from 1980’s point of view. A member of a group of superhackers is trying to convince another member that some of the others have been trying to leverage their computer skillz to take power in the real world:
“You know what convinced Wiley that the Mailman could deliver on his promises? It was the revolution in Venezuela. It was to be the Mailman’s first demonstration that that controlling data and information services could be used to take permanent control of a state. And Venezuela, they claimed, was perfect: Its data-processing facilities are all just a bit obsolete, since they were bought when the country was at the peak of its boom time.”
First an oil boom in Venezuela, then revolution. Think about it, maaaaaaaaan. It all makes sense!
Gah, they’ve done it again! Every time we try to put forth falsehood, lies, deceit, and confusion, some humans twist it around to make it something clear, interesting, and true!
Consider the lies of feminism. Now we’ve got a good thing going there, don’t get me wrong. But no sooner had we established “Women’s Studies” as an actual thing (LOL), than some human scholar starts twisting it around to ask interesting anthropological questions!
I’m referring to that study that just appeared in The Journal of Feminist B.S. in which a young professor digs into the role of the two sexes in the prehistorical development of human technology. Her basic notion is as follows: Given that men were basically out running around fighting each other and chasing down impalas, and women were walking around holding infants, foraging for plants, and cooking them, it seems reasonable that the technologies of e.g. cooking and baby slings were more developed by women, and the technologies of hunting and war were more developed by men. So this little guttersnipe is investigating the archeological evidence about this.
“Big deal,” you’ll say, “that’s obvious.”
But think about it: We’re trying to divide the humans along certain lines (in this case sex) and make them hate each other. Then this little $#@&^%&^% comes along and starts asking valid questions about human pre-history! It’s all very intellectually curious, which is the last thing we want to encourage. And it’s intellectually honest, since she has no agenda and doesn’t care what the answer is; she just wants to know the answer. Much worse, there’s no hate in it at all! The journal editors forgot to require her to insert something about how men oppressed women by not soliciting their opinions on the bow and arrow, or whatever. That’s not why we invented Women’s Studies, damn it!
Diabolus Apprentice 19,751 to Diabolus 31,506:
But that’s just one example. Not much harm, right?
By the way, you referred to “the two sexes” above. Shouldn’t that be “the seventeen sexes”? Or whatever number we’re up to now?
Diabolus 31,506 to Diabolus Apprentice 19,751:
Regarding “the two sexes,” it’s okay to say that as long as it’s just us chickens. But good awareness.
And it’s not just one example, Ap. 19,751. Here’s another recent one, from “environmental science”: So we get the falsified data, crammed through the ridiculous models, and with enough working over the results (with a sledgehammer, LOL) we get the conclusion we want, which is, of course: You need to establish totalitarian government right now or you’re all going to die!
We thought we had “environmental science” in the bag, but some monkeywrenching little *&^$@&^&$* comes along and gets interested in the environment’s dynamics (i.e., how the system changes over time). So what does he do? He develops his own model – which is drastically simplified, but that’s no help to us because he honestly acknowledges that fact, aargh! – and starts analyzing its dynamics.
The result? He proves a new stability theorem! Some mathematics professors at the university where he teaches heard about his theorem, got interested in it, and have been generalizing and extending it to other kinds of dynamic systems! FUCK! We start this whole enviro enchilada with a view to spreading falsehood, and what happens? Some little asshole comes along and uses it to develop a new intellectual tool for finding truth! How the fuck are we supposed to anticipate and prevent things like this? I can’t work under these conditions, Ap. 19,751. Sometimes I despair, I really do.
Our task is made more difficult by the fact that all truth coheres as a single whole. You never know when some lie you’re telling over here is going to be contradicted by some fact that pops up over there. One just has to hope the humans don’t notice, and that never works in the long run. Their constant experience of everyday reality contradicts some of our lies every second of every day.
Consider one of our marquee lies, “The two (seventeen, whatever) sexes are exactly the same psychologically and behaviorally.” It’s a rare human that makes it to age five believing that one, Ap. 19,751. And naturally, when they figure out that we’re liars it hurts our attempts to spread other lies immeasurably. Just between you and me, I often wish the Low Command would be more strategic about the nonsense we’re supposed to spew. (Consider two of the current big ones: (1) It’s impossible to tamper with the U.S. voting system, and (2) Russia tampered with the U.S. voting system. Even for human leftists, believing both of these simultaneously is a stretch.)
And it gets even worse. My hand is getting stiff from writing this, so I’ll leave off for now, but my next missive will discuss the worst example in recent decades of humans finding truth in the midst of lies.
“Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., who supported Bernie Sanders, admiringly retweets Glenn Greenwald and was an outspoken supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
You could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Weinstein, who identifies himself as ‘deeply progressive,’ is just the kind of teacher that students at one of the most left-wing colleges in the country would admire. Instead, he has become a victim of an increasingly widespread campaign by leftist students.”
2) Allison Stanger, a self-described liberal professor at Middlebury College, was assaulted by leftist students when she tried to have a debate with Charles Murray. She suffered from whiplash and a concussion due to the attack. The fact that she was going to be debating him – “to grill” him, in her words – didn’t save her from the left-wing hate mob.
3) A black movie professor and self-described feminist was driven from academia by her students, a bunch of snowflake fascists who interpreted just about everything in her class as trauma-inducing.
I am intimidated by these students. I am scared to teach courses on race, gender, or sexuality, or even texts that bring these issues up in any way—and I am a gay mixed-race woman. There is a serious problem here… and I’m at a loss as to how to begin to address it, especially since many of these students don’t believe in either historicity or objective facts. (They denounce the latter as being a tool of the white cisheteropatriarchy.)
Who taught them that, morons? YOU DID! You leftist college professors did, for decades! Now the inevitable consequences have arrived. What the hell did you think would happen when you taught students that objective facts are a tool of the white patriarchy? That they’d respect your claims about objective facts? You thought they’d never turn on you because… what, exactly? Because you’re so wonderful? Because the students you’ve trained to be aggressive confrontational thugs would exercise self-restraint? Oooooooops!
Two professors chatting on a college campus circa 1990:
“Let’s create an utterly amoral hate mob. That can only end well, right?”
“Yeah, what could go wrong?”
All this gives me a schadengasm powerful enough to make the North American tectonic plate vibrate. HEY LEFT-WING COLLEGE PROFESSORS: REMEMBER WHEN THOSE OF US ON THE RIGHT SPENT THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES WARNING YOU OF EXACTLY THIS? REMEMBER HOW WE SAID, IN SO MANY WORDS, THAT ONE DAY THE WEAPON YOU WERE CREATING WOULD BE TURNED AGAINST YOU? WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN, YOU FUCKING IDIOTS?
A liberal can be defined as someone who is so stupid that after they spend a quarter-century teaching students that facts are a tool of the heteropatriarchy, they are surprised when their students tell them that facts are a tool of the heteropatriarchy. A liberal can be defined as someone who is so stupid that after they spend decades arguing that the idea of freedom of speech is just a rhetorical trap of institutionalized power, they are surprised when their students try to silence them, and justify it by saying that the idea of freedom of speech is just a rhetorical trap of institutionalized power.
There is literally no limit to the stupidity of leftists. It goes on and on, forever. Spinoza was only a little off when he said that to grasp infinity, one need only contemplate the extent of human stupidity. He should have said, the extent of leftist stupidity, and he would have been spot on. It’s a little-known fact that when Georg Cantor was developing the foundations of transfinite mathematics, he used the stupidity of leftists as motivating examples.
But it gets better.
If you’ve been to college in the last few decades, you know that a significant fraction of lefty professors have this famous passage about Nazi Germany on their office doors:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
How many of these leftist profs who were happy when the hate mob was going after conservatives have this on their office doors? How many will perceive the irony now that the mob is after them? Hell, never mind the irony; how many of them will even realize that they are in that scenario?
Not to worry, though, lefties! We conservatives and libertarians will now spend a lot of time and energy defending your right to BWAHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
No, sorry. You spent decades carefully crafting this shit sandwich.
A puzzle: How can a person, having seen the problems with a particular ideology, later embrace that ideology?
H.L. Mencken: “Every philosopher strives to prove that every other philosopher is an ass, and they all succeed.”
Mencken’s dictum applies to ideologies too. Having seen how asinine other ideologies are, how can one adopt one of them? For example, if you are a libertarian for years, you’ll become familiar with all the reasons that powerful government is a horrible thing. Now libertarianism, like all political philosophies, has problems, and so people sometimes abandon libertarianism for other philosophies.
(This was back before identity politics became the overarching theme of our era, making traditional political philosophy obsolete. Now we’re on a war footing, in case you haven’t noticed, so all of that is going to be put on hold for at least a generation. But I digress…)
But how? It makes sense that a person could give up on traditional political philosophy because all such philosophies have weaknesses, but once you’ve seen the flaws in other perspectives, how could you embrace any of them? This is what I don’t get.
This question re-surfaced for me recently due to the crisis in Venezuela.
I have an acquaintance who used to be a libertarian, particularly with a large element of Austrian economics. (If you’re not aware of it, the Austrian School of economics is a school known for, among other things, its support of laissez-faire economics.)
Six or seven years ago he walked away from libertarianism. Notably, he soon began to say nice things about the Venezuelan system. This was several years ago, before its failures became so massive and undeniable that even the Left had to do their usual shift from “This is socialism and it’s working!” to “This is totally not socialism!”
So this guy, as an ex-libertarian and ex-Austrian, is aware of the impossibility of socialist calculation, as well as the more widely understood incentive problems with socialism. (“We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”) How could he have forgotten all that and convinced himself that socialism would work in Venezuela?
This is the thing that just baffles me about so many apostates from perspective X that embrace perspective Y. You already have clearly seen the problems with Y. How can you make yourself un-see them?
Here is a set of blurbs for an erotic fantasy trilogy, Alpha Trio by Ana Vela. Alpha Trio refers to a trio of brothers who hunt vampires or whatever; each book in the trilogy centers on one of the brothers.
Judging from the summaries, the central theme of these books is that a woman finds an alpha male – defined by physical toughness, elite status in a particular skill or profession, and the ability to bed lots of women – and makes him infatuated with her, the one special snowflake.
Particularly interesting is the admission of the desirability of social proof. As you can read below, two of the summaries explicitly state that the hero bangs lots of other chicks before the oh-so-special and irresistible snowflake heroine arrives and captures his [redacted] no, not that body part, his heart.
From the above Amazon link:
Vol. 1 – Cats & Dogs
Among the hidden world of the supernatural, the secret Shifter police squad known as the Alpha Trio is renowned for their fierce expertise. Only the best fighters ever rise to join their storied ranks.
Emilian Lupei and his brothers are the best of the best…
While sampling the night life… a gorgeous young woman stumbles into Emilian’s path and it’s just his luck that she’s being chased by a vampire.
…will he be able to keep his hands off Cat, the luscious human woman…?
Vol. 2 – The New Girl
The undisputed captain of the secret Shifter police squad known as The Alpha Trio, Andrei ‘Drei’ Lupei is not used to being ignored.
Everyone, from the new recruits, to his brothers, to the women he beds and forgets, fall in line. Everyone, that is, except the gorgeous, redheaded, and very human bartender at his favorite club. [See, the special snowflake refuses to fall into the alpha’s bed at the drop of a hat. Thus she captures his interest with her mysterious Yikes I’m gonna hurl. Be right back. Where was I? Oh yeah. This is a very common motif in female porn romance fiction: The hero prongs megatons of chicks, but falls for our heroine because she’s immune to his charms. Ladies, this is the most astoundingly ill-advised strategy. The problem is all the girls you’re competing with who will happily jump into the sack. Furthermore, a guy knows that other guys are getting laid, so if you say, “Yer not gettin’ any, pal!” he knows he’s being ripped off and will go elsewhere. At least, that’s what I always have done. (Then they try to get back with you. Every. Single. Time. Women!)]
Cassandra knows more than she should about the Lupei brothers and the shadow world they inhabit… Drei should be worrying about what the vampires have planned… but all he can think about is the alluring and mysterious Cassandra. And she knows it.
Will his new obsession bring danger to the Alpha Trio…?
[Alpha men who get tons of pussy don’t get one-itis. Honestly. Ladies, your fantasy that an alpha with a notch count well into the double digits will get one-itis for you is like my fantasy about boinking Adriana Lima: Fun as a fantasy, but don’t expect it to happen.]
Vol. 3 – A Special Taste
Grigore Lupei is the youngest member of Alpha Trio, the secret Shifter police squad. He’s always been the joker, the charmer, the fun one.
Lately though, seeing with his older brothers with their gorgeous Mates, wallowing in happiness and reeking of sex, is starting to take its toll. It’s getting harder for him to pretend he’s happy with a string of meaningless conquests when what he really wants is something like what Drei and Em have found.
[Will no one save me from lots of sex with a constantly-refreshed string of hot chicks all the time? Why does this keep happening to me!?]
But spending time at the bottom of a bottle is a dangerous prospect for a someone in Grig’s line of work, especially with the vampires plotting to kidnap Cat, Em’s human Mate, to use for their nefarious purposes…
[Nefarious. Nefarious. Nefarious. Nefariousnefariousnefarious. The word has lost all meaning.]
Until a vision with silky black hair, plump red lips, and a deadly blade [OK, I admit this is kind of turning me on] shows up to save him. Kall says she can help Grig and his brothers stop the vampire threat once and for all – but can he trust the mysterious, dangerous stranger?
[Please tell me she’s dressed in tight black leather. BTW, mysterious stranger is fine, but mysterious dangerous stranger is pure female projection. Men are not attracted to dangerous women the way women are attracted to dangerous men. That’s not a thing in a typical man’s headspace.]
Will she bring peace and safety to the Alpha Trio…or something else entirely?
[I’m guessing she’ll bring… sex. Could you go back to the part about the silky black hair and plump red lips?]
Well. What does this sort of thing tell us? Women are often remarkably revealing (intentionally or not) about their desires when they write fiction for other women. In particular, you can see major themes of female attraction here: social proof, social dominance, etc. One major warning: In much of this kind of fiction, the ending has the unattainable alpha male breaking down and falling helplessly in love with the one special snowflake. See, e.g., the absolutely vomit-inducing scene between Ethan Hawke and Winona Ryder at the end of Reality Bites. WOMEN DO NOT REALLY WANT THIS; SOME JUST BELIEVE ON A CONSCIOUS LEVEL THAT THEY DO. Here is where experience must outweigh women’s words. (And it is why material like the above must be used only for illustrative purposes, NEVER as the primary source of knowledge about women.) In reality, if a man becomes a woman’s emotional love slave or whatever, she has only contempt and disgust for him. As Roissy once said, “Women do not understand their own attraction mechanism.” Empiricism uber alles!
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my gun.
Saw this on a car in Massachusetts years ago.
Obviously it’s a great bumper sticker. It’s short, sweet, instantly understandable, and undeniable. It makes its point in a visceral way. It highlights the hypocrisy of the Left in general and those creatures called the Kennedys in particular. The best rhetoric, as Vox Day points out, is based in truth.
– – – – – – – –
Note: If you’re young you might not actually instantly understand the reference due to the Left’s memory-holing of inconvenient facts. Google Mary Jo Kopechne. The incident being referred to is that Ted Kennedy got drunk one night and left a party with a young woman who was not his wife. Kennedy crashed the car over the side of a bridge and the woman drowned. Kennedy swam to shore, leaving her to die in the car. He did not report the incident to authorities until ten hours later. He not only never went to jail over this, he never even lost his Senate seat. Massachusetts voters were happy to return him to Congress for decades afterward. Keep this in mind the next time a leftist tries to pretend that s/he cares about principle.
The only “punishment” Kennedy ever suffered was that, as with Hillary Clinton’s corruption, it put an end to his chance of becoming President. (Leftists would happily vote for a drunken murderer, but conservatives and moderates wouldn’t.) E.g., he attacked George Bush senior in the 1988 Presidential race by asking, about some scandal, “Where was George?” Republicans devastatingly replied: “Dry, Sober and Home with his Wife.”
Which is another good bumper sticker, now that I think of it.
Well, for people who crave power, being denied the Presidency is something of a punishment. Not enough, but something. So that was that.
Whew! I said one of the virtues of the car/gun bumper sticker was its brevity, then I went off on a long-winded explanation of it! You have to understand that back in the 1990s (in Massachusetts, no less) everyone would have instantly gotten the reference. It required no more explanation than a punch in the face, and was as powerful.