The Revolution: Affirmative Action in Education, and Everything Else

Four good posts pertaining to The Revolution:

Steve Sailer comments on the affirmative action situation in California education:

“Asian-American backlash” – “A legislative push to permit California’s public universities to once again consider race and ethnicity in admissions appears to be on life support after an intense backlash from Asian-American parents who fear it will make it harder for their children to get into good schools. -San Jose Mercury-News”

Sailer comments: White politicians would have to come up with some principled argument framed in Kantian terms for why legislation intended to hurt white children is bad for everybody. Asians can’t be bothered.  The future isn’t going to be terribly idealistic.

Vox offers his translation:

Tribalism comes to America” – Translation: the anti-White White-Yellow-Black-Brown alliance is breaking down because some of the anti-White policies are starting to negatively affect the Yellow population. And since the Yellow population is openly tribal, they’re not about to follow the self-loathing White lead into disadvantaging their own children.

Outsideness comments on a PJ Media post:

“Unspoken Agendas” – Zombie proposes a key to contemporary American politics: White liberals despise black people and can’t admit it. This is smart conservative jiu jitsu rather than anything remotely neoreactionary, but as a wedge to lever things apart, it has some intriguing potential. The central claim of a carefully-elaborated argument:

Indeed, Zombie at PJ Media covers nearly every hot-button issue of the day through this framework in his article: Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics

  • Gun Control
  • Junk Food Taxes
  • Climate Change
  • The Welfare State
  • Affirmative Action
  • Plastic Bag Bans
  • Abortion
  • Nanny Statism-in-general

Check them out!

Categorical Errors and Administrative Morality

I find myself needing the phrase “error of category” more and more often.  Simultaneously, I’ve learned that if one encounters an error of category in every discussion, one should cut immediately to ending that discussion.  It won’t reach a resolution.

Errors of category come in two flavors.

One is a direct, point-by-point comparison between items which appear to be similar, but are actually dissimilar to the point where the comparison is no longer useful.  An example of this is comparing democracy and theocracy.  Both are “systems of government,” are they not?  But the comparison broke down in a recent discussion with a friend.  We observed that, for some reason, democracies in the Middle East have tended to become theocratic.  The spread of Shari’a law in the third world is a commonly-spoken of fear in the West.  (Oddly, fears of Shari’a spreading in its native land are taken seriously, whereas expressing concern over the spread of Shari’a in the West is dismissed as a provincial attitude.)  I pointed out that democracy is merely a process of implementing majority rule, and that it is instructive to note the US Constitution specifically lists certain items which are not subject to majority rule.  Majority rule defines the law of the land-except when it doesn’t.  It seems there are certain cultural a priori foundations upon which our democratic government is based.  A theocracy, on the other hand, openly admits its a priori positions and implements them without shame or concealment.  Thus, democracy is merely a process, but theocracy is both a process and a foundation.  In this instance, the lack of a true point-to-point, one-to-one comparison undermines the usefulness of the comparison and inferences being made.

The second flavor of categorical error is when an issue is analyzed and judged by criteria that are inappropriate for the category of the item being judged.  The difference between the first flavor and the second is that here, the comparison is *implicit.*  While the first is faulty thinking, the second is more accurately characterized as a failure to think.  I find they typically occur when the difficulties of actually implementing an idealistic principle reveal something about the principle itself and the principle’s role in society.

An example of this type of categorical error is the occasional discussions about school holiday schedules and non-Christian students.  The traditional school calendar is unquestionably shaped by three major American cultural forces: agricultural schedules, secular federal holidays, and Christian holidays.

Arguments from a strictly negative standpoint, ie “Why should everyone get Christmas off?” are non-starters.  Too few people feel oppressed by the Christmas holiday.  The discussion really centers on the positive argument, “Why can’t we take Ramadan off too?”  or, “Why not take Ramadan off *instead*?”  Here, one begins to see an argument which is not a non-starter.  One segment of society notices that the government observes one religious holiday, but not their own.  The government is facilitating one religious tradition, but not another.  The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment gets invoked.  The government mandates school attendance during Ramadan, but not Christmas.  The Free Exercise Clause gets invoked.  It’s moral outrage all the way down.

Obviously, the ideal is that no one has to miss school to observe their holidays.  Yet it should be readily apparent that to schedule the school year around every single religious holiday, including those on the lunar calendar, would be both irregular and would not actually leave many days left over for schooling!

So the inclusive crowd is advocating an ideal which, in effect, would not provide enough time for education to take place.  Educational resources would be vastly outstripped by the simple, inevitable process of the students growing up.  Our students would fall even further behind students elsewhere in the world.

We’ve described the inability for social systems to keep up with the baseline rate of change in society: these are the Formal Causes of Post-Modernism–ignorance of entropy, and ignorance of opportunity cost!

The error of category here is applying the 1st Amendment to the school schedule; we have applied weighty principles to mere societal administrative decisions.  We run into the problem I think of as “Administrative Morality.”  The resulting conflict appears intractable.

There are a few noteworthy points to take away from this:

  1. The forces of Progressivism drive cultures towards a singularity.  Rather than Christians and Muslims living their lives by their calendars, Progress will eventually set them to living on the same calendar.
  2. From point #1, it follows that “multiculturalism” as understood today is untenable.  Diversity is best understood as forced homogenization which will undermine any culture participating in it.
  3. The collision of abstract principles with the mundane realities of life re-emphasize that culture is a matter of common, shared beliefs and practices.  This is essentially the inverse of point #2; to maintain their identities, cultures must maintain a certain amount of physical integrity among themselves.

I’ll end by expanding on my third point.  For an American expatriate community in a Muslim country to demand the silencing of muezzin calls would be unthinkable, either in the spirit under which people demand the 10 Commandments be removed from government buildings, or under the more explicitly progressive-environmental cause of “noise pollution.”  Yet what will communities do when a newly-built mosque begins playing calls to prayer?  Will they be protected as analogous to church bells, even though church bells chime briefly at set times of the day, and calls to prayer are much longer and not based on an hourly-schedule?  How will a culture which includes aurally invasive traditions coexist with a culture which does not?

I predict that, in a spirit similar to The Revolution, enough instances of categorical errors and administrative morality will eventually demonstrate that true diversity and multiculturalism resembles an old-school system of city quarters, where each culture can flourish and coexist beside, rather than comingled with one another.  In fact, most American cities can already be described in terms of quarters.  It is only the elite institutions which attempt to exist otherwise.  I wonder how long that will last?

The Revolution: Getting Noticed in Canada

David Hume over at Secular Right posted an article whose title doubles as a definition for The Revolution:

Multiculturalism will collapse due to its own internal contradictions

It is passé to point out the difficulties in accommodating both gender egalitarianism and religious traditions for which strong differentiation in sex roles and interaction are mandatory (e.g., Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and some conservative variants of Protestantism). Rather, I want to highlight the general idea of inclusion and diversity.The problem is that many cultures around the world revolve around the theme of exclusion, or at most assimilation of the Other. In fact this is much more normative over the history of the world than the multiculturalism that has emerged in the West after the 1960s. To be entirely frank, post-1960s Western multiculturalism is sui generis. It seems to view a person’s suite of cultural characteristics being assembled together a la carte, as individuals select of their own free will from a set of practices and beliefs so as to maximize their own self-actualization. The reality though is that for most humans cultures are imbibed as if one is selecting prix fixe menus, subscribing to a whole host of beliefs simultaneously, many of which are at contradiction with the individualist liberal ethos.

The Revolution: Lesbian Haircuts vs Muslim Barbers

Discovered an older news article that deserves filing under The Revolution:

Gay activists have met their match with Muslim barbers

So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.

It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it really happened, and now a government agency called the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario will hear her complaint.

Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.

Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.

But that’s what multiculturalism and unlimited immigration from illiberal countries means. A central pillar of many immigrant cultures is the second-class citizenship of women and gays.

So if we now believe in multiculturalism, and that our Canadian culture of tolerance isn’t any better than the Shariah culture of sex crimes and gender apartheid, who are we to complain when Omar Mahrouk takes us up on our promise that he can continue to practise his culture — lesbian haircuts be damned?

He’s not the one who passed the Multiculturalism Act, and invited in hundreds of thousands of immigrants with medieval attitudes towards women and gays and Jews, etc. We did.

Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too.

But McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

A good editorial here:

Gender vs religion: Woman refused haircut by Muslim barber highlights problem of colliding rights

“Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to own property, the right to life with due process. These are fundamental rights and that’s what they’ve been historically called,” he said, adding that these rights have been “trampled” in cases where they clash with “equality rights.” He can tell the Supreme Court is struggling with his case, he says — while a typical case takes around six to nine months to sort out, his has taken twice as long.

Trying to balance competing human rights gets tricky when individual rights clash, like in the barbershop case, since the system is set up to deal with claims of institutional discrimination —such as in the workplace, said Shauna Van Praagh, a professor of law at McGill University, who points out that Quebec’s human rights laws recognize that a person cannot “harm” another person while trying to uphold their own right —that their freedom is limited in that regard.

And it turns out they settled out of court.  Couldn’t find what the settlement was.

Rights complaint against Muslim barber who refused to give woman haircut quietly resolved

Months after a Toronto woman filed a human rights complaint against a Muslim barber who would not give her a haircut, the issue has been quietly resolved.

During a closed-door mediation session Friday, Faith McGregor and barbershop owner Omar Mahrouk came to an “arrangement” that satisfied them both, thus putting the controversial complaint to rest.

I take a bit of solace that the barber wasn’t trampled on by the commission, publicly forced by the government to violate his beliefs.  The leftist crowd that likes to look to any western society but America as a leader and role model should take note of how this actually turned out.

 

Gender, Reductio ad absurdum

A lot of thoughts congealed into an amusing conclusion in my head recently.  This article of someone standing up to insanity was the catalyst for me writing it down:

Jared Leto came under fire from a heckler Tuesday, who said the Dallas Buyers Club actor didn’t deserve to be honored for his work in the film.

“Trans-misogyny does not deserve an award,” said the unidentified woman, who attended the Santa Barbara International Film Festival’s Virtuosos Award tribute honoring Leto and three others who gave breakthrough performances in 2013.

“What do you mean by that?” Leto asked, to which the heckler said, “You don’t deserve an award for portraying a trans-woman, because you’re a man.”

“Because I’m a man, I don’t deserve to play that part?” Letoasked, rhetorically. “So you would hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian — they can’t play a straight part?”

Progressive dialogues lean heavily on ambiguity to sign up foot soldiers for a reasonable cause only to send them on campaigns on insanity.  This is how a clueless 20-something in a bar says, “Of course I’m a feminist, feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”  (This is real.  You can even buy a t-shirt)  While this isn’t exactly false, it is an understatement of so many orders of magnitude it is essentially a lie of omission, somewhat like saying a lot of Native Americans got sick when the Europeans arrived.  It’s how the clueless ones end up hopping into bed (ha!  two puns in one night) with the types of females who write things like this and this.

Anyway, I’m getting off topic.

It is common knowledge that it is not allowable to suggest that women necessarily (as a norm) or often (as a description):

  • Have long hair
  • Wear dresses, skirts, or other traditionally feminine clothes
  • Wear makeup
  • Are better or worse suited for certain jobs than men (Double-edged sword.  Feminists will own up to being somehow superior to men, but simultaneously will refuse to admit it lest they be pigeonholed)
  • Tend to be more or less interested in certain things than men

Recently, we have added to this list the insanity of Blank-Slatism taken to an extreme and California passing a bill that allows schoolchildren to use the restroom of their choice.

On top of this, the newest front in The Revolution, “Feminist Intersectionality,” is unfolding much to my amusement.  How far down the rabbit hole have we fallen?

In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. “Given the constant genital policing, you can’t expect trans folks to feel included by an event title focused on a policed, binary genital,” tweeted @DrJaneChi, an abortion and transgender health provider. (She mentioned “internal genitals” as an alternative.) When Plimpton insisted that she would continue to say “vagina,” her feed filled up with indignation. “So you’re really committed to doubling down on using a term that you’ve been told many times is exclusionary & harmful?” asked one self-described intersectional feminist blogger.

Yes, there is a serious debate among the vocal feminist crowd over whether or not it is appropriate to assume the term “vagina” is automatically associated with “women.”

And herein lies my realization:

I could, at any time, without changing my clothes, my appearance, my mannerisms, my legal status, my inner child, my inner self, my sexual orientation, my physical anatomy, literally absolutely nothing whatesoever about myself, then declare myself to be a woman, entirely justified by the criteria of the academics above.  (Which certainly complicates the question of whether my sexual orientation changed, doesn’t it?)  We have really reached the point where gender is the difference between tomato/to-mah-to.

Progressivism requires no parody; it is unbound by reality and certain to contradict itself in hilarious ways over and over again.

…One Of These Things Just Doesn’t Belong

Last month, as the Duck Dynasty flap (ha!) was winding down, I wrote my opinion on the eventual death of religious freedom in America.  It won’t be insidious, nor will it be a shadowy conspiracy.  Rather, it will be much like the same-sex marriage discourse; one day the Church will be the next most-vulnerable opponent of the Progressive agenda, and the public’s whole worldview will subtly shift to a whole new understanding that makes the Church’s position completely unacceptable to the majority of those in power (Judges, in this case.  Not voters or their legislators)

So imagine my un-surprise when I read this today:

UN Report Attacks Catholic Church’s Teachings on Abortion, Sexuality

A UN committee has told the Catholic Church to get over its opposition to adolescents having sex and that it needs to change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality…

The Committee specifically told the Church “to review its position on abortion which places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls and to amend Canon 1398 relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted.”

The Committee lamented “the negative consequences of the Holy See’s position and practices of denying access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information.” The Committee directed the Church “to access the serious implications of its position on adolescents’ enjoyment of highest attainable standard of health and overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality…”

The Committee is also displeased with the Church for not recognizing same-sex families: “The Committee recommends that the Holy See ensure that Canon Law provisions recognize the diversity of family settings and do not discriminate children (sic) based on the type of family they live in.”

The Committee also charged the Church with contributing to violence against homosexuals: “The Holy See’s past statements and declarations on homosexuality which contribute to the social stigmatization of and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adolescents and children raised by same-sex couples.”

So a UN committee is giving explicit guidelines on how to change Church doctrine.  While the UN is not the US, it hardly needs to be pointed out that such an edict should be unthinkable in the US as a violation of the First Amendment.

The doctrine of “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” played no small part in allowing Christians to reconcile the Holy and the mundane to survive as an oppressed religion and rise to majority without becoming an explicit theocracy.  In many ways, this is the spirit of the First Amendment as well.  But Lewis Carroll gave us a wonderful metaphor for understanding the fate of dissenters in a Progressive society:

Queen of Hearts: Now then, are you ready for your sentence?

Alice: But there has to be a verdict first.

Queen of Hearts: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.

Alice: But that just isn’t the way.

Queen of Hearts: [shouting] All ways are…!

Alice: …your ways, your Majesty.

I really have little interest in defending the Catholic Church’s teachings per se, but I am acutely interested in the boldness of the growing singular world government asserting its right to dictate doctrine to a major world religion.  I predict this conflict will only continue to grow, until such time as the Church is found to be a Hate Organization by the SLPC…and it sticks.

Isolation is Part of the Deal

A tweet by C.M. Sturges of Apocalypse Cometh led me to a post on the blog called “Body Crimes:

IS THE RED PILL BAD FOR YOUR MENTAL HEALTH?

Anyone who’s spent much time reading this blog knows that in the past few months, I’ve become entranced by the New Misogynists – bloggers, both male and female, who believe that civilisation started collapsing the day women got the vote. These Manosphere bloggers are themselves part of a wider neo-reactionary movement that’s coming to be known as the Dark Enlightenment, (though it should more properly be called The Extinguishment, because it seeks to overturn the Enlightenment virtues of liberty and suffrage).

Although the more pretentious members of the movement have started to use the term ‘Dark Enlightenment’, most of the everyday bloggers refer to themselves as ‘red pill takers’.

The ‘red pill’ reference comes from The Matrix. If you swallow the red pill, you see the world as it really is. If you swallow the blue pill, you remained plugged in to a comforting dream.

It’s a very funny and perceptive video. One of the most acute things he says is that one side effect of taking the red pill is that people who have swallowed it don’t seem to be very happy: “It may even be a depressant.”

And how right he is. Take a look at the post Red Pill Isolation, from the Apocalypse Cometh blog, where the author, C.M. Sturges, says:

“There’s a common misconception in our little corner of the webz. That exposing yourself to the truth, essentially going down the rabbit hole, is going to make your life better. Nothing could be further from the truth…

You are going to become isolated. Most notably socially but also with your thoughts, opinions and your ability to finally see what surrounds you in this crumbling society.”

Read the rest here:

She appears to be an observer of the orthosphere, and makes some rather level-head analysis of it.  Where I think her analysis needed some extra work was separating “red pill knowledge” from the application of said knowledge.  (See bottom on the role of diagnostician and clinician.)  Since she seemed very cordial with Sturges, so I hazarded a comment to her post.   Reposted in its entirety:

I agree with a large part of your assessment, but I would ask you consider this:

It is a well-known phrase that politics makes strange bedfellows. With the overwhelming degree of uniformity in the mainstream media and culture, it is inevitable that all dissenters will be lumped together as “The Others.” For example, in a world that bases equality of genders on belief in the *sameness* of genders, anyone who dares believe men and women are different is a dangerous heretic. And so you end up grouping together those who favor more traditional approaches to dating with those who believe women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

And so it is absolutely true that daring to question the premises of a culture we don’t believe in brings an incredible amount of intellectual isolation. How could it not? For merely stating an obvious fact, such as women bear children and men don’t, or that men and women tend to exhibit different problem-solving techniques, I am branded a dangerous heretic, or a “misogynist,” in today’s lingo. Interestingly, many of these facts when stated by women are considered laudable, but when stated by men they are detestable. This is usually fueled by fears and assumptions of the other party’s motives:

Woman: “Men and women think differently”: Yes! Celebrate our uniqueness and individuality!
Man: “Men and women think differently”: No! Gender is a social construct! A woman can do anything a man can do!

Facts can be stated by good people and by evil people. The problem is that public discourse has decided to disown any and all facts that could possibly be used as ammunition by evil people. This means that the system has chosen to designate as its enemies not just the “evil” people, but the reasonable ones interested in facts. It is this anti-intellectualism and counter-factualism that has created an environment of intolerance, and has spurred the rise of the “Dark Enlightenment,” “Neoreaction,” “Red Pill.” If you “criminalize” normality, then don’t be surprised when normal people become “criminals.”

Few of us are intent on doing evil. But all of us demand that the facts be heard.

The isolation is lonely. That is part of The Matrix analogy as well; compare the glitz and comforts of the fake world with the drab clothes, gross food, and ugliness of the real world. The analogy is not cherry-picked for its best parts; we accept it as a package deal.

But I’ll also agree with C.M. Sturges. It is liberating to understand that you aren’t going crazy, and others share your observations. We are building a community where we fit in, and finally have an venue to apply our constructive efforts. Don’t overlook the “manosphere’s” huge emphasis on self-improvement. (Nor its contrast with the Jezebel-esque attempts at self-delusion: obese is beautiful, you should be loved for just being you, you’re perfect as you are, etc)

And while I have refrained from the meta-writing impulse to place myself in context of the cosmology of the orthosphere, this seems like a pretty good time to do it.

At present, I consider myself a social diagnostician.  As I said in my intro to the Neoreactionary Canon:

A confluence of sharp minds is taking place on the internet. Intelligent writers covering a wide range of issues have realized that conventional understandings of civilization and its history don’t “work.” The theories fail to hold predictive value. The models are broken. To repurpose an image from one of the original writers:

“It is impossible to enumerate the full list of reasons behind this belief. It’s like asking you why you prefer a romantic candlelight dinner for two at a simple, yet elegant, French restaurant, to being dragged alive behind an 18-wheeler at highway speed until there is nothing on the rope but a bloody flap of skin.” – Mencius Moldbug, “An Open Letter to Progressives,” pg 121

To answer the above question would be difficult, not for lack of reasons, but for an abundance of reasons; it is difficult to decide where to start. Furthermore, the fact that the question was even posed leads the reader to believe that the questioner not only needs an answer, he needs help. Specifically, he needs help so badly that he doesn’t even recognize it.

I commit myself only to the idea that what we are doing isn’t working.  My series on The Revolution and my analysis of Post-Modern Progressivism focus firmly on the ills of the here-and-now.  My conclusions have aligned with those of the neoreaction, and so I am with them thus far.  (Reading Moldbug’s social commentary was like an exercise in reading my own thoughts.)

And yet deciphering what is wrong is a far cry from determining what is right, that is, to be a social clinician.  Several ideas of various levels of unorthodoxy have been proposed.  Serious discussions of monarchy and crypto-tyranny have arisen.  These I treat as interesting thought experiments, but things to which I am not willing to commit.  At the less serious, yet more successful end of the scale, bloggers such as Matt Forney and Return of Kings have inspired amazing levels of awareness and outrage at politically incorrect gender-relations truths.  While seemingly unrelated, Truth is Truth, and if the orthosphere is about the right to speak uncensored truths, than their role in this community cannot be denied.

This post covers a lot of ground, so to recap: Yes, the “red pill experience” entails a lot of intellectual loneliness.  No, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  Yes, I align with the neoreaction.  No, I’m not endorsing monarchy.  Yes, I believe the truth about gender relations is suppressed.  Maybe, the way RoK makes their points is rough, but maybe that’s the only way the truths will be heard.  And yes, I will continue to write until I have nothing left to say.