Sunday, December 21, 2014

An Analysis Interrupted.

An analysis made, then taken away:
"Now, if I were to analyze this incident the same way that liberals analyze similar incidents where they think they can blame conservatives, I would blame the shootings of these two officers on liberal websites fanning the flames of rage against the police. I would blame the murders on Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Caucus, the parents of Michael Brown — all the race hustlers who have been exploiting the situation for their own benefit.

I’d blame Eric Holder and Barack Obama for pandering to black anger. I’d blame the climate of cop hatred that has been created by so-called activists and has sprung up and infected black communities across the country.

But I’m not a liberal so I am going to withhold judgment until we find out why the perpetrator committed this horrific act. Anyone who takes their own life is a disturbed individual, so it’s possible that all of the above had little or nothing to do with his act of murder."
I'm much less sanguine. The perp here never would have even heard about these deaths if it were not for race-baiting and riot mongering by the entire Leftist edifice. They wanted to see rioting and violence, and they see it and will likely see it again.

Tweet of the Year

From Instapundit:
TWEET OF THE YEAR: My favorite part about the Obama era is all the racial healing.

No "Justice", No Peace: the War on Cops Begins

Gunman executes 2 NYPD cops as ‘revenge’ for Garner
I hold the Left and Sharpton-type race baiters completely responsible for this.

From Drudge:

Saturday, December 20, 2014

More Bogus "Science"

In the government, for Leftist purposes of course:
"The report, titled “Under the Microscope: An examination of the questionable science and lack of independent peer review in Endangered Species Act listings,” did not include input from committee Democrats or a response from the Obama administration. The GOP study researched the federal government’s peer review process for 13 different endangered species listings made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since July 2013 and found examples of a lack of transparency and consistency.

The agency, according to the report, sometimes employs peer reviewers who authored studies on the species they are reviewing. The GOP staff determined that the peer review process as currently employed by the FWS “relies on a network of scientists who, if nothing else, have a professional and academic interest in the outcome of the ESA listing decisions they are being asked to review.”

“In recruiting peer reviewers, the FWS appears to favor scientists whose views on a species are already well known rather than more independent scientists in other academic or professional fields who would be able to bring a fresh perspective to the science the FWS is citing to support its ESA listing decisions,” it said.

The FWS does not have clear or consistent procedures in place across all regional offices to ensure that potential peer reviewers undergo a screening to identify possible conflicts of interest or impartiality, the report said. The agency furthermore doesn’t consistently disclose information regarding who serves as peer reviewers, the instructions they are given or the substance of their comments."
It's hard to be surprised by any government malfeasance these days. It's corrupt, top to bottom. And that includes any claim to science which is made by the government.

Still More Atheist Commandments

Atheists keep coming up with alternatives to the Ten Commandments. None of them stick as actual Atheist moral principles, and this set shows why.
"Ten people collectively won the Rethink Prize, which was granted for their efforts in re-imagining the traditional Ten Commandments; they will share a collective $10,000 prize.

Below, see their new set of commandments:
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.
These were chosen among 2,800 total submissions. What do you think of them? You can read the original Ten Commandments here."
Bayer and Figdor organized this contest around their book, “Atheist Mind, Human Heart,” which itself contained such things which we discussed elsewhere, some time back. So let's see how the contest winners' commandments hold up to logical scrutiny.

"1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence."
Atheists reject all but material evidence; so there is no evidence possible which will change their minds, because their minds are set on a logical fallacy: Category Error.
"2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true."
This places truth squarely into the probabilistic zone, where Atheists can use Baye's Theorem to manipulate "truth" according to their biases. They know that there is no truth except that which they make up. So they make "making it up" into a commandment. The non-specificity of this statement allows anything to be calculated as "probably" true, and certain Atheists do this all the time.
"3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world."
This is not a commandment at all, unless it commands Atheists to be Scientistic Materialists (and that is not clear from the assertion being made). Atheists are Scientistic by ideology, and their Scientism is stuck in Newtonian space. The idea of reality being nothing but probability fields all the way down is not useful to them in their Materialism, especially the part about the necessity of external conscious intervention to collapse the equation and produce anything resembling the special case of Newton's physics. Besides, this is not a commandment at all.
"4. Every person has the right to control over their body."
Also not a commandment, this is a phony "right", which will be interpreted to include only those who are "allowed" to be persons. It is an Atheist pass-time to create new definitions of personhood, depending upon the situation. This does not apply, of course, to anyone declared not-a-person by Atheists.
"5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life."
Another non-commandment; it is an assertion with no definition of "good". Good is what every Atheist defines it to be, for his own purpose, at the moment called "now". This could apply to Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot, or Castro quite well.
"6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them."
A weak attempt at a commandment, which fails to instruct as to what sort of consequences are Good and which are Bad, or even consequences for whom. That's because there is no Good/Bad judgment possible under the Atheist Void of moral emptiness. As Nietzsche demonstrated, there can be no good or evil under Atheism. So this "commandment" is without meaning, except possibly as a "don't get caught by the law" caveat.
"8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations."
And how should we consider them? As impediments to happiness requiring abortion? As Oppressors of our Victimhood Classes to be suppressed and removed? This bogus "commandment" also is without meaning, and is manipulable in every conceivable dimension.
"9. There is no one right way to live."
Now we are getting somewhere, even though this is not a commandment. This one is an assertion that ANYTHING GOES.
"10.Leave the world a better place than you found it."
Would the world be a better place without certain categories of people in it? Is that what we have here? Being non-specific as to what a "better place" would entail, leaves this commandment just as open to subjective interpretation as is possible. For the totalitarian AtheoLeft, a better world would be one where they, the elites, dominate and control the lives of the perpetual Victimhood herd, which is constantly being equalized and admonished to tolerate the dictates of the elites.
(As always, see the Humanist Manifesto I).

Let's summarize. Only a few of the "commandments" are actually commandments at all; the rest are assertions of one type or another. Those which actually are commandments are so non-specific as to cover any interpretation which might be put on them, thus allowing any type of behavior whatsoever.

Commandment number 9, (not actually a commandment) says it all: ANYTHING GOES in Atheist-land.

However, since Atheist thinking and behavior is not subject to logical scrutiny, at least not by Atheists, they are still without any restrictions and for them, ANYTHING GOES is the winning Atheist principle of moral conduct..

Atheist Fundamentalism?

An Atheist Asserts “Religious Privilege” as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman's site, and we'll look at his claims.

It is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege, “privilege” being the new microagression which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.

Here Croft gives the defining situation:

“’I don’t believe in God,’ he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I’m a Christian minister, I wondered?… Was he intentionally being aggressive?”
“Consider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words “I don’t believe in God” are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say “I don’t believe in God” is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you—not with any “fundamentalist atheism.” Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.”
It’s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.

And contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the "gastric distress" claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.

The nouveau classist-chic privilege "microaggression" charge is similar to the charge that
“you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I’m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid”.
In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:
“you’re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are”
– hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.

However, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.

That is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that’s for a different time).

Free Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).

But back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:

That the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried “atheistic fundamentalism” for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is “atheist fundamentalism.”

This is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not “diversity respect” in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.

This nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.

And of course it is not “critique of religion” which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere "critiques", as Croft's use of the weaponized "privilege" demonstrates.

Croft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.

It is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.

Croft tries to calm the dialog with the following:
“I understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them—and what sometimes really is—unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term “atheist fundamentalism” is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.”
Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term “Atheist fundamentalism” be replaced with “Atheist Three-Class Messiahism”. That should clear up their position.

Feminism as Leftist Shock Troops Seizing Western Culture

It seems to me to resolve to this: western culture, including the advent of science and civil law, technology and moral principle, came about by the white male, the tensions between white males, and the progress of both individuals and groups.

The benefits of western society are craved by those who did not participate in their creation. It is their desire to take the benefits of western culture without having to contribute themselves, in fact to seize them for themselves by delegitimizing and demonizing the actual creators and preservers.

The result, should it be brought to fruition, would be the short occupation of an advanced culture by the anarchists, the hate-filled destroyers of civilized discourse, of civilized behaviors, of principled moral character.

In other words, the culture war is that of intellectual anarchic barbarians vs. the developers and supporters of civilization.

This war is an assault primarily by feminists (a phenomenon which I only recently came to comprehend). The culture is transmitted through education/maleducation, media perversion and control of the narrative, with the constant assault by intolerance of any discussion outside the narrative. Black rioting is borderline useless at narrative translation, so it is not blacks who dominate the assault regardless of the anarchic nature of their position and actions. It is not environmentalism regardless of the anarchic intellectual obsession with computer simulations.

It is the lesbian feminists who dominate the education system, especially the universities, demand sexual libertinistic freedoms, and control even the political scene by demonizing free speech. Their target is precisely the population which represents those who created and maintained the western culture, its science, philosophical underpinnings and political theories.

In order to dominate that which they crave but did not create, feminists must destroy the actual population responsible for maintaining the western culture.

What feminists will do with the culture which they seize can only be speculated. But it will not be the same, or even nearly the same. White males will always be guilty of their skin color and sex: whiteness and maleness. The three class system will never be relinquished to "equality"; classism is necessary for the ascent and maintenance of feminist domination. So persecution is built-in to feminism, regardless of how much power they ultimately have.

If this sounds similar to New Man theories of the 20th century Left, it is no accident. Nor will the disaster feminism causes be accidental. It is the fruition of irresponsible, anti-intellectualist hatred and emotional instability coming into power.

Female Accountability

Vox Day made an interesting comment, one which seems to summarize many disparate issues: in today's feminist driven Messiah culture, women are not to be held accountable. While this applies to all Victimhood Groups, it is the feminists which control the campus and the dialog at the moment. Messiahism marches to the orders of feminists.

For example, it is being uncovered now that Jackie, the impetus behind the UVA rape fraud, also plagiarized love letters from TV shows. The entire Jackie fraud episode is raising no squall from the feminist Left. It was only the appearance of support for the Rape Culture Narrative that gained shrieks from the US president on down throughout the entire feminist Left. But the consequence of her lies brings no comments at all, except that her lies demonstrate a "broader truth".

As for consequences of this fraud, not a single player - not Jackie, not the writer, not the editor, not the university president - has encountered any fundamental consequence for her actions, other than having to dodge criticism and ridicule, neither of which influence Leftists.

The contrary to this is the university presidents and professors who have been fired and/or run off campus for statements which were, on the whole, pro-woman, yet not feminist enough.

The advent of the necessity for "trigger warnings" to prevent fainting and regurgitation by delicate women upon coming into contact with "situations" places the Victimhood Category into control of all situations, because any situation might be too much for the woman to bear. This means that men, any man, all men, are actually triggers, being rapists-in-waiting. Elevator-gate proved that.

It is now a designated Leftist fact that women are too fragile to survive in contemporary society. They cannot be held accountable because they are too fragile. Their accusations of persecution must be believed regardless of any actual material facts because the fragility of women in Leftist America places them into an alternative reality, one where they need not protect themselves from drunkenness or sexual predation, one where the existence of predation must be eradicated by eradicating the predators in order to protect the helpless females. In other words, an alternative reality where males can be only evil Oppressors: predators to be eradicated.

The necessary consequence is for men, not women. Feminist insistence on its Victimology necessarily requires misandry and the subsequent persecution of men. Under Victimology no designated victim can be responsible for her actions. This is demonstrated by black Victimhood, where terrorist actions are excused as merely "acting out frustratons". The same goes for the environment, where all bad weather is a reaction to human abuse of Gaia, while weather itself is no indication of AGW.

So a woman need not take precautionary measures, because males, the Oppressors, should be eradicated - that's the logic.

Females in this alternate reality should go ahead and behave however they wish - being as stoned and drunken as possible - and suffer no responsibility for their incapacity, much less any consequence from being incapacitated. They can easily see that only in a male-free universe can this be accomplished. That is Feminism Today. Basically lesbian totalitarian.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Non-Rape, Captured on Video

Woman falsely accuses man of rape, and man captures it on video

Full time body cams: that's the answer to this feminist scourge.

Regret Equals Rape?

At Washington and Lee:
"A day after Rolling Stone published an article describing a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house, a former Washington and Lee student claims he was expelled for having consensual sex with another student who eight months later regretted the encounter and claimed rape.

The former W&L student has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the private Lexington university discriminated against him because he is a male, and because it wanted to avoid the negative public scrutiny that UVa was experiencing. Moreover, the student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit, contends W&L’s Title IX officer advocates to female students that “regret equals rape.

“W&L has created an environment where an accused male student is fundamentally denied due process by being prosecuted through the conduct process under a presumption of guilt. Such a one-sided process deprived Plaintiff, as a male student, of educational opportunities at W&L on the basis of his sex,” John Doe claims in the lawsuit."
It's not just regret; it's actually jealousy, according to this:
"John Doe claims that twice, he had consensual sex with a student identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe. The first encounter occurred in his room at the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity house where they went after an off-campus party on Feb. 8. Both had been drinking, he said.

He claims they sat on chairs in his room and talked for about an hour. He said Jane Doe then said that while she doesn’t usually have sex with a man when she first meets him, she found him very interesting. He said she moved toward him, initiated kissing, took off her clothes except for her underwear and got into bed with him. He said at no point did she say she did not want to have sex.

He claims she spent the night, that he contacted her later through Facebook and that they had sex again in early March. He said she told her friends she had a good time. But at a Pi Kappa Phi St. Patrick’s Day party a few weeks later, Jane Doe left when she saw him kissing another woman, who is now his girlfriend.
Every case like this should be referred to the police and adjudicated in the courts. Universities are incapable of objectivity these days.

Quote of the Day

"“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”
– Edward Gibbon, Epitaph for the People of Ancient Athens"
Anyone who fights to achieve "freedom from..." is a totalitarian at heart. Liberty lovers fight for the "freedom to...", and against "freedom from...".

The confusion comes from erroneously equating the freedom from morality with the freedom to commit libertine, licentious acts at will, and that sort of moral anarchy requires the suppression of all actual moral principles. As Gibbon said, it reduces to non-acceptance of responsibility for one's own character. But that involves the destruction of others who are caught in the anarchists' wake, and ultimately those anarchists as well.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Everywhere, All the Time: Defining nearly all sex as rape

The implications are clear: if the female changes her mind after the fact, then it was rape, if that's what she says: it is imperative to believe what SHE says.
"California’s “yes means yes” law turns the idea of sexual consent upside down. Suddenly, nearly all sex is rape, unless no person involved reports it as such."
We now know, having been instructed by the harpies, that we absolutely must believe a woman who charges "rape".
"So what would provable consent look like? Joke all you want, but descriptions of bland, bureaucratic sexual situations really are the only way to prove consent.

Can I kiss you? Sign here.

Can I touch you? Sign here.

You get the point.

Beyond signed documents (which, if the signature wasn’t perfect could be interpreted as the person being too drunk to sign their name), would be video recordings of the entire night’s events. This would have to include the first meeting of the two people through some time after the sexual activity. (Perhaps body cameras for college students are the answer?)"
And why are certain states still allowed to have US senators?
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is open to changing that. During an MSNBC-hosted panel discussion on Monday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, Gillibrand said she was considering taking the “yes means yes” law to the federal level."
It's a short step from there to the feminist position that, "all PIV sex is rape", and to: "all men are rapists in waiting".

So far they have successfully embedded the official Victimhood Classes into Protected Categories, under which any offense is a Hate Crime (Caps intended: showing official status). Soon they will want to officially designate the Oppressor Class, which first and foremost is White Males. Just the idea of white males is an offense in many areas these days, causing fainting and regurgitation, similar to the reaction when an Atheist sees a religious artifact. Fainting and regurgitation are the proof of Tolerance amongst the Toleranti.

Har. Good Second Hand Comment

Trigger warning for math textbooks:
Caution: contains straight lines!

Someone Ask Hillary

If "Black lives matter", then why abort them by the millions?
"She wondered what Kennedy would say about “the thousands of Americans marching in our streets demanding justice for all,” and “the mothers who’ve lost their sons.”
There is no longer any such thing as civil justice for the American Left. The Leftist candidate for president ("It's Her Turn") is joining in the mantra against grand jury decisions and evidence.

What she actually believes is beside the point; the point is to gather the blacks back to the Leftist reservation after letting them suffer economically, and then ignoring them in favor of Hispanic illegals. Her investment is negligible, and the return is high so it's a win for Consequentialism. She can be the third black president.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Great Graphic of the Operation of the Model 1911 Semi-Auto Handgun

Is right Here.

The Proceeds of American Maleducation

When the educational elite hates freedom, democracy and America's history of the development of freedom and democracy, their history books will contain that hate condensed for student's consumption.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center conducted a civics survey in September and found that only 36 percent of American adults could name the three branches of government, and 35 percent could not name even one. Only 27 percent knew that it requires a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Sixty-one percent were unable to correctly identify the party that controls the House, and a nearly identical percentage couldn't name the party in control of the Senate. Leaving aside our middling performance in math and science, this alone should be enough to indict our public school system.

What about more educated Americans? A 2012 survey of college graduates commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only 37 percent knew the terms of U.S. representatives and senators. Only 58 percent knew that the document establishing separation of powers is the U.S. Constitution; 25 percent chose the Articles of Confederation, and 7 percent thought it was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. (Do you get the feeling people were guessing?) Less than half knew that the American general at Yorktown was George Washington -- 48 percent.

Only about 18 percent of American colleges require a survey course on U.S. history or government. Then again, when they do teach U.S. history, they tend to do so in a highly tendentious fashion. As my colleague Jay Nordlinger has observed, "it's all slavery, racism and the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

This is deadly serious business. Civilizations are not self-sustaining enterprises. People must believe that their society and culture are worth preserving. If we don't teach our children the fundamentals of American history and government, they will not have the knowledge or perspective necessary to maintain it.

The undermining of the Advanced Placement U.S. history curriculum is typical of the progressives' work in our schools. Like thousands of termites, they are eating away at the foundations of our culture.

The new "framework" for the teaching of AP history, which is studied by thousands of America's top-performing high-school students, emphasizes oppressors and exploiters while scanting liberators and pioneers. Teachers are encouraged to examine the Colonial period by comparing and contrasting the different social and economic goals of the 17th-century Spanish, French, Dutch and British colonizers. The British, students are to be instructed, differed from the rest because of a "strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority," which led to the imposition of a "rigid racial hierarchy."

Larry Krieger, a former high-school history teacher, summarizes: "While students will learn a great deal about the Beaver Wars, the Chickasaw Wars, the Pueblo Revolt, and King Philip's War, they will learn little or nothing about the rise of religious toleration, the development of democratic institutions, and the emergence of a society that included a rich mix of ethnic groups and the absence of a hereditary aristocracy. The Framework blatantly ignores such pivotal historic figures as Roger Williams and Benjamin Franklin and such key developments as the emergence of New England town meetings and the Virginia House of Burgesses as cradles of democracy."
Those parents who do not actively deprogram their children after a day of intellectual abuse at government school will lose their children to the Left. It's not speculation. It is observable fact.

Law Student Writes in National Law Journal: Delay Exams! I'm Traumatized!

The comments to this Harvard Law student's whine are Great! Too many to read them all, tho.

Google vs. Extended Adolescence

Google speaks on education:
"Google looks for the ability to step back and embrace other people’s ideas when they’re better. “It’s ‘intellectual humility.’ Without humility, you are unable to learn,” Bock says. “Successful bright people rarely experience failure, and so they don’t learn how to learn from that failure.”
When everyone in government schools gets a blue ribbon for just being, they develop no humility. It's all part of the dumbing down of America via maleducation. So collegiate education accepts dumbing down by eliminating history and english and goes for the frivolous. It's big business these days, not education.
"Many schools don’t deliver on what they promise, Bock says, but generate a ton of debt in return for not learning what’s most useful. It’s an “extended adolescence,” he says."
I guess Black Studies and Women's Studies aren't that useful to Google. But openness to new logical possibilities is:
"What we’ve seen is that the people who are the most successful here, who we want to hire, will have a fierce position. They’ll argue like hell. They’ll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, ‘here’s a new fact,’ and they’ll go, ‘Oh, well, that changes things; you’re right.’”
When one gets bent to the Left in "education", facts no longer exist: the narrative exists. Protecting the narrative requires both irrational rationalization, and willingness to ignore actual facts. Because that becomes the natural way of thinking, it damages or eliminates the capacity for actual logical thinking.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

An Excerpt From Victor Davis Hanson

"Obama won election to the presidency twice by skillfully slicing up the electorate into aggrieved groups, all supposedly warred on by rich, white, heterosexual men. But after the constructed wars against minorities, women, the environment, and gays, we are left mostly only with psychodrama. The war on women sputtered out with the buffoonery of failed candidates like Wendy Davis in Texas and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, a.k.a. Senator Uterus. In the age of the Duke lacrosse scandal, if there were not fantasy rape allegations at the University of Virginia or in Lena Dunham’s mythographic memoir, then they would have to be invented, given the McCarthyesque climate created on our campuses.

Race relations have not been worse in over a half-century. For some reason, liberal polemical arsonists never quite figured out that each time they stooped to heated racialist rhetoric about a new coalition of noble minority voters sweeping away a tired old culpable white electorate, they turned off another working-class white Democratic voter — all on the suspect premise that blacks and minorities would turn out in droves for liberal white candidates and their elitist agendas, as they once had for Barack Obama. They assumed that Obama was building them a permanent new coalition; instead he took for granted that he was building a one-time movement only for himself.

Of course, amid the wreckage of hope and change, Obama complains that racial animosity now fuels hostility to his administration — this from a president who garnered more white votes than most previous white Democratic presidential candidates. Only in the age of Obama could racism be defined as 40 percent of the white vote going for a black candidate, while 5 percent of the black vote went for a white candidate."

[emphasis added]
The entire article is here.

The History of the Rape Culture Crisis in 7 minutes

And more rape hoaxes:
Here Are EIGHT Campus Rape Hoaxes Eerily Like The UVA Rape Story

Zaron Burnett III Advises His Readers: Kill All White People

Zaron Burnett III writes:
Kill All White People!
"Personally, I don’t have a problem with white people. I have a white friend. In fact, I have lots of white friends. My mother, she’s white. Honestly, I don’t think white people are the enemy. But still, it’s abundantly clear, we need to kill all white people. We need to rid the earth of whiteness. With the future in mind, I put forth the argument that white people need a rebrand, starting with a new name. We gotta murder the inherently racist concept that we refer to as “white people.”

We keep trying to rename black people, but nothing sticks. Negroes. Colored. Afro-Americans. African-Americans. PoC. It’s all reactionary. They’re nonsensical terms. You know why, right? Because the problem starts with white people. We gotta get rid of them first. As long as there are white people there will always be racism."
The problem is... what? Blacks must never encounter white people, and then they'll prosper? That's not exactly what he means, but almost. He's actually into "White Privilege Theory", meaning that skin tone is the problem, it's the reason blacks can't do or get anything they want. What do they want? To eliminate white skin tone. How?
"As co-father of white privilege theory Ted Allen once said, “whiteness is a traitor to humanity.” This is your moment to put down your whiteness and embrace humanity. Just imagine every man your brother and every woman your sister. Imagine how much easier that would be to deal with. You may think you’re losing power by dropping your whiteness, but you also uncouple your soul from the guilt and shame. It’d be a clean start.
So my white skin confers guilt and shame on me; just due to color. That's what blacks insist about whites: whites are tautologically guilty and shameful.
I’m sure some naysayers and cynics reading this are thinking, “Um, did you forget about ‘Caucasian?’ White people already have a name. Duh.” Really, though? C’mon, now. When was the last time you called a white person a Caucasian? You and I both know the only people using the word “Caucasian” are TV cops. I’m just being real. Those of us who aren’t fictional, we call ‘em white people. And there’s the rub. As long as we call them white people, we’ll always have racism. The problem with white privilege isn’t living, breathing white people; it’s their whiteness."
So in order to get along with blacks, we must behave like we are black. Presumably that means to quit our engineering careers, speak ebonics and wear hoodies and pants down around our knees. And do I think that blacks would accept me if I did that? The chances are zero, and I don't mean the one divided by infinity type of zero approximation, I mean the concept of none as in 3,2,1,zero - the integer. This is fatuous nonsense in the form of impossible rules made up by a black for denigrating whites: pure racism from a black.
"Now, I could cite theory about white privilege. Give you stats that illustrate how and why PoC in America suffer due to a system built upon the foundation of white supremacy. But you’re smart. You see it with your own eyes. You hear it every day in the news cycle. Well this, my friends, is the way out: we kill all white people. We pry open the rusty bonds that chain us to our bloody history of whiteness. We emancipate ourselves, once and for all.

You may be thinking, “But I don’t want to just ditch my race, Zaron. I’m comfortable being white. I know how to do white, man.” Yes, I’m sure you are comfortable. It does sound nice. But it’s still the problem. For the conservative-minded still reading this, I promise you, relinquishing your whiteness won’t make you a traitor to your race. Race is imaginary. It’ll be more like waking up from a centuries-long nightmare."
Race actually is not imaginary, it is the nectar of life for blacks who make the excuses the Burnett III is making. Where race becomes imaginary is when blacks who ignore race go out and join with other humans to pursue common goals. Think of Condoleeza Rice. How is she received in black communities? Not well. Her race becomes important, not to whites, but to blacks.

Burnett III continues by totally misrepresenting the Irish immigration history, and using his own fantasies as Truths for his narrative. He fluctuates between renaming whites and killing them all:
"Since we’re all modern people, perhaps this whole name-changing business would best be decided via reality show. We could call it Kill All White People! Winner gets to pick the new name. Although that could be dangerous, too. If white people got corporate sponsorship, you could end up Walmartians. Maybe a reality show isn’t such a good idea.

…But you know what is?

Kill All White People!"

[Empahsis in original]
Now if someone wrote "kill all black people", hate crime would be asserted immediately, and the feds would arrest the author as soon as they could get through the crowds of torch-bearing protesters, and into the burning house.

That's the difference between black-blacks and whites. And they think that I should shuck my white and become black? They should think carefully about what they are asking for. It might get very hot for them.

A News Day From the Left

Activists at New York protest: 'What do we want? Dead cops'

Chicago liberals march in support of child-killing ISIS, genocide

Report: ISIS militants 'systematically beheading' Christian children in Mosul

Ferguson protesters: 'The only solution is a Communist revolution'

Liberal professor calls for genocide, says white males should commit suicide

New Black Panther audio: 'If they are white, kill ‘em all

Twitter explodes with demands to murder Ferguson officer Darren Wilson, family

Tell President Barack Obama: Change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day

"Even If It's a Lie, It's True"

The Left has used this internal contradiction every time they are caught in their lies, as with Dunham's and UVa rapes and the deaths of unarmed black men. This irrationality is stated blatantly and without any attempt to conceal its logical failure. It is a general statement which is used in many situations, over many decades.
When rioters and “protesters” defend criminals and attack the police it is not a protest. It is an attack. When radicals and rioters defend the guilty and attempt to prosecute the innocent, it is not a protest. It is an attack. When they make race an issue when it is clearly not an issue, it is an attack. When whites are regarded as guilty before the fact and blacks guiltless even after the facts show they are guilty, it is not a protest; it is an attack. It is a calculated attack and the target is America, is us.

“No Justice, No Peace!” is the cry of modern lynch mobs. It means “Our Justice, Or Else” - or else we will burn your city down. Or else we will burn your system down. This is the agenda of the left in the streets and of their supporters in the White House and the Democratic Party: “We are going to fundamentally transform the United States of America: your system of justice, your system of governance and your system of laws. If we can’t do that, we are going to burn it down.

Conservatives need to stop dropping their jaws when progressives say “My mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts” – and mean it. Conservatives need to recognize that the only facts that matter to progressives are the ones that justify their attacks. The mobs who have occupied our streets are not protesting injustice. They are a lynch mob demanding their due. They want officers of the law handcuffed and hung, and criminals (aka “political prisoners”) set free. They want honest juries disbanded, and racist judgments the rule.

Understand that our president and his chief civil rights officer, who are encouraging the “protests,” are racists, as is the Democratic Party which exerts monopoly control over every major inner city in America. Why else would Obama and Holder look to Al Sharpton, who is certainly the nation’s most prominent racist, as their chief adviser on race relations?

Al Sharpton is author of the fundamental transformation of the civil rights movement into a racial lynch mob, which took place decades ago. It probably began with the teenager Tawana Brawley, who accused white cops of raping her because she was afraid of being beaten by her mother when she failed to come home. Sharpton led the charge, whose self-appointed posses ruined these officers careers and lives. The progressive phrase of the day was: “Even if Tawana Brawley was lying, she was telling the truth.” (Because white men regularly raped black women – a bigger lie than Brawley’s own tall tale.)

Sharpton has made his career as a slanderer of whites in too many cases to list. Think only of the innocent Duke LaCrosse players whose careers and reputations he and his minions destroyed for a year while defending their criminal accuser who was black. Think of Paula Deen, who voted for Obama voter and gave millions of her self-made fortune to poor black children, but was falsely and successfully framed as a racist by Sharpton and Co., until her multi-million dollar empire lay in ruins. Nor are apologies ever necessary for black lynchers like Sharpton. There are probably more cases like this of whites who have been destroyed by black racists than there are of blacks being shot for being black by law enforcement offers. And there are surely a lot more cases of blacks being shot for being black by other blacks.

The trigger of the current progressive assault, which has inspired mobs in over 100 American cities, is the Eric Garner case in New York. Many conservatives eager to be reasonable have suggested that the racial arsonists may have a point. Actually they don’t. Most conservatives realize that the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” slogan, which pretends that the Ferguson criminal, Michael Brown, was innocent and the white police officer Darren Wilson guilty is false. But the Eric Garner slogan “I Can’t Breathe” which suggests Garner was choked to death because he was black is equally a lie. Garner wasn’t choked to death, and he didn’t die because of the color of his skin.

The police sergeant on the scene directing the arrest was an African-American woman. Garner was not choked or strangled to death. He died in the ambulance from a heart attack, a consequence of his morbid obesity, asthma, heart disease, diabetes and resisting arrest.

[all emphasis added]
For the Left, facts which are contrary to the narrative are not facts, they are merely aberrations to the narrative, which is always true by definition - tautological, absolute truth.

This is the reason that I disagree with John C. Wright, who wrote in his recent essay,
"The philosophy of centerless unprincipled unreason is called secular humanism, but it should rightly be called dehumanism, since its end is to remove all particular human characteristics from the human soul, and leave man barren, helpless, hopeless, soulless and empty beneath the Mordorian lidless eye of the omnipotent state.

This is the world view and the mission of the elite.

Let me hasten to add that no one person holds all these beliefs, or hold them all to the same degree. The beliefs contradict each other and contain lunatic paradoxes, so of course no one can embrace all Modernist ideals simultaneously. Many folk only have one or two of these slogans they repeat, perhaps lukewarmly, and few are true zealots. The average Progressive or Leftist or New Ager or Lover of Dunderheaded Stupidity does not buy fully into these beliefs simply because no one could: these beliefs are deadly, and only the dead could practice them consistently."

[emphasis added]
Leftists can and do hold opinions which are internally contradictory in all modes, arguments, assertions and slogans. They are not in the least rational nor do they care about logic or paradoxes. Their position is based in emotional instability, enhanced by maleducation and weaponized by Leftist agitators of race, sex, morals, environment and any other division which they can create.

The culture war is simply an official war declared by those who, in wright's terminology, are Antinomian - against all norms and standards, and for their destruction by whatever means are necessary.
"Antinomianism, the idea that moral rules have no meaning, is a logically incoherent idea, easily refuted by human experience. Progressivism, the idea that the rules of the science economics can be replaced by wishful thinking, is likewise incoherent, and likewise alien to human experience. Progressivism and Antinomianism are Siamese twins, since the promised revolution of the Progressivism involves an overthrow of basic principles of justice, such as the maxim that forbids stealing, forbids envy, forbids treason, forbids lying. The more violent and radical version of Progressivism, Socialism, also refutes the principle of justice that forbids murdering the innocent masses in their millions who all have to be trampled underfoot for the Marxist and Maoist revolutions to succeed. Socialism is the first code of conduct in history where to show disrespect to one’s elders and ancestors, and to hate and uproot one’s own history and institutions is regarded as a virtue rather than a vice.

Adherence to incoherence has several consequences for any mind willing and able to carry out the logical corollaries implied: civility, history, politics, and reason are all involved in the downfall of morality.

Simple civility is the first casualty of this world view, for it presupposes a degree of respect, if not for persons, then for rules of courtesy, but in either case for norms. One cannot consistently be an Antinomian and be in favor of norms.

(One also cannot respect the victims of one’s lies: contempt is the only logical way to regard those one lies about or lies to.)

History is simply ignored by the Progressives: they regard it as a principle of Hegelian or Marxist or Darwinian evolution that the past has no control over the future, no merit, and need not be consulted. The extraordinary and risible inability of the Progressives of any age to learn from their mistakes, their astonishing parochialism, and their revolting inability to honor even their own founding members are all explained by this philosophical amnesia.

As a political philosophy, Progressivism is not a political philosophy, and does not pretend to be: it is a psychological strategy to scapegoat others for failures and dissatisfaction. As the National Socialists were with the Jews, as Marxists are with the Capitalists, as Race-baiters are with Whites, and Feminists are with Males, as Jihadists are with the Great Satan, and as everyone is with the Roman Catholic Church, the Progressive scheme of things consists of finding someone to blame and expanding the power of the State in order allegedly to rectify these allegedly blameworthy evils.

Nothing is ever blamed on the nature of things, or natural limitations of reality, or on historical facts: these entities do not exist in the Progressive mind.

Reason, of course, cannot be dethroned from the respect it merits by any reasonable argument: instead it has to be shunned.

To do this is relatively simple: Reason was merely called ‘rationalization’ by Freudians, ‘False Consciousness’ or ‘An Ideological Superstructure’ by Marxists, or an ‘Epiphenomenon’ by various sorts of Behaviorists and radical Materialists. Reasoning, particularly metaphysical reasoning, was denounced as meaningless verbiage according to a metaphysical principle of the Logical Positivist School.

Hence, the one central principle of this allegedly rational and scientific age is its devotion to centerless unprincipled unreason.

The philosophy of centerless unprincipled unreason is called secular humanism, but it should rightly be called dehumanism, since its end is to remove all particular human characteristics from the human soul, and leave man barren, helpless, hopeless, soulless and empty beneath the Mordorian lidless eye of the omnipotent state.

This is the world view and the mission of the elite.
Wright's analysis is eloquent, and spot on, except for the repeated caveat that no one can hold all the incoherent positions which Leftists sloganize. That is too kind, and denies their actual capacities for holding fallacy as truth. It starts with Atheism and the denial of their personal rejectionism - a mindless and irrational rejection of rejectionism. That is the foundation for future irrationality, a trait of Antimony, from which I will adopt Wright's wonderful term, Antimonianism. They are against everything cultural which poses a restriction on their anarchic behaviors, lusts and minds.

Hence, it makes perfect sense to them to chant:
"What do we want?
When do we want it?
Wright says,
"The average Progressive or Leftist or New Ager or Lover of Dunderheaded Stupidity does not buy fully into these beliefs simply because no one could: these beliefs are deadly, and only the dead could practice them consistently."
I would agree, IFF he had said, instead of "dead", "morally and intellectually dead, but activated in their unstable emotional irrationality".