Two Observations

Observation One: The New York Times is fast becoming little more than a literary sewer. I suggest the editors seriously consider changing the paper’s motto to say “all the news that’s shit to print,” as I think that would more accurately reflect the syphilitic quality of its offerings.


Take, for example, the above gem of an article. Quite newsworthy.

Observation Two: feminism has become entirely farcical. It continues to render itself more and more irrelevant, by revealing itself to be little more than a hollow, catch-all concept that women can use to justify anything from the murder of the unborn to the selling of hideous lingerie.

Some ideologies inspire the great to wage wars and to establish great and durable civilizations. Other ideologies inspire the mediocre to manufacture high waisted culottes and to attention whore half naked before an international audience.


Elitist Economics

File Under: Totalitarianism 

A proposed new law in Denmark could be the first step towards an economic revolution that sees physical currencies and normal bank accounts abolished and gives governments futuristic new tools to fight the cycle of “boom and bust”.

The Danish proposal sounds innocuous enough on the surface – it would simply allow shops to refuse payments in cash and insist that customers use contactless debit cards or some other means of electronic payment.

Officially, the aim is to ease “administrative and financial burdens”, such as the cost of hiring a security service to send cash to the bank, and is part of a programme of reforms aimed at boosting growth – there is evidence that high cash usage in an economy acts as a drag.

But the move could be a key moment in the advent of “cashless societies”. And once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government – the authorities will be able to encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it is overheating.

It’s a certain sign of the times when global elites openly advance totalitarianism as the solution to the instability created by the very systems that they created and control.  Elder Jim Leaviss informs us, ever so disingenuously, that physical cash and its usage is the cause of cyclical economic disruptions globally and must be abolished.

This article is amazing for several reasons:

(1) It demonstrates just how audacious elites are becoming with espousing notions that feature obvious totalitarian overtones. Even ten years ago, Big Brother Leaviss and his ilk would have had a fleeting thought of this kind here and there, and maybe would have gone as far as to haltingly voice their thoughts to a couple of sympathetic corporate comrades. Ultimately though, they would have kept their cards to their chests for the sake of maintaining plausible deniability, and would have kept pretending that they weren’t directly engaged in the willful destruction of the global economy. They certainly wouldn’t have trumpeted their intentions on a platform like the Telegraph. Now, they are comfortably placing their cards on the table and daring anyone to tell them that their shit hand won’t win the game.

(2) It demonstrates just how desirous elites are for the advent of the total “one world” state and for the concentration of power in their hands. It’s clear that the endgame here is one global currency. That aside, for all his talk of his plan as a means of “giving poor and rural sectors of an economy. . .a tool for easy participation in the economy” Leaviss must be aware that his proposal will have the opposite effect. It will have the effect direct effect of impoverishing vast swathes of the world’s residents, while solidifying power within the hands of the global oligarchy. He must further realize that his proposal necessitates the aggrandizement of an omnipotent state and the diminution of the individual. His plan requires the elimination of choice and the introduction of “confiscation” (his words). What he proposes is a heavily centralized global government running a completely centralized bank that are in turn run by “enlightened” Brahmins and bureaucrats. To precis black-hearted O’Brien: it’s all about power, kids.

No truer words were ever spoken.

(3) It demonstrates how comfortable elites are with fascism: the Leaviss scheme will effectively obliterate any meaningful public/private distinctions. In an environment like the one that Leaviss desires, the state will be absolutely free to control all aspects of the private sector through the manipulation of the currency. Government will be free to create controls, determine output, favor or disfavor corporations, determine investment strategies, etc. There will be no market such as we have now. Frankly, our Jim prefers it that way.

(4) It demonstrates how disingenuous elites are, especially those of the value transferrence set, in describing the true causes of economic disruption. Economic peaks and valleys are natural in any normally functioning economy. Nevertheless, notice the way in which O’Brien Leaviss implies that this is in some way “unnatural” or “bad,” and then maligns the “high cash usage in the economy” as the cause of perfectly natural and cyclical phenomena. Let’s ask the question: how is it that the market came to be so flush with cash in the first place? He’ll never tell. Rather, he informs us that the solution to economic instability is to abolish cash and hand over the reins to the central banks. Of course, as a former employee of the Bank of England and a present fund manager at M & G, it’s natural that he would have a hard-on for centralized banks and the type of government that would be iron fisted with the masses and open handed with the banking elite.

Could it be, Jim, that these cash flush times are a direct result of any of the following central bank policies: (1) fractional reserve banking? (2) Quantitative easing? (3) artificially low interests rates and the over extension of credit? Could it even be that government policies that work to artificially stimulate nonexistent demand for goods and services (ahem, housing bubble) or artificially stymie true demand for goods and services cause any sorts of disruption, especially when the government gets it wrong?

Could the move from laissez-faire economic model and towards a command economy model possibly have been catastrophic? Could the solution to this problem possibly be getting rid of central banks, or a return to full reserve banking even if that means higher depositor fees and slower (but more stable) rates of expansion, or even smaller government? Of course not. The answer is none of the above. Repeat after me: physical currency is the cause of allllll our economic disruptions. Ironically, this prescription is written for us by the same doctor who extolled the virtues higher levels of inflation back in 2014. What triggers inflation? An excess of currency in circulation. Which entities are in direct control of this? Governments and unaccountable central banks.

But let’s ignore all of that. If Scandinavia is on board, sign us all up!

Ed. 5/29/15: super smart people came to this same conclusion way before me.

Film Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (Not Your Mother’s Feminist Movie)

Mad Max: Fury Road is a fantastic film, a stunning vision in X-Pro that is definitely worth the watch. The film is fast paced, visually stunning, and laconic. The acting is superb and overall, the film is a piece of solid cinematic storytelling. In full disclosure, my primary motivation in seeing this film was to find out whether the film was as feminism inflected as critics suggested. While the film confusingly opts to center its story on Imperator Furiosa (played by a butched-up Charlize Theron) in a film ostensibly about the trials and travails of its titular character, “Mad” Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) I couldn’t help but notice just how profoundly un-feminist the film was. It pits itself decidedly against the dominant cultural narrative of equalism, godlessness, and relentless modernity and firmly in the camp of radical inequality, mysticism, and tradition. Fury Road is an intoxicating mix of religious iconography, deep ecology, and apocalyptica.


Fury Road returns to the desolate desert in which it was born, to a universe that is even more brutal and unforgiving than the ones preceding it. The nuclear holocaust has come and gone; survival is the only aim. This world, where disfigured hoardes in the valley are counseled against becoming too attached to water lest they come to resent its absence by a disfigured overlord atop a verdant peak as he niggardly doles it out, is indubitably a man’s world. Only the toughest of the tough will survive. Imperator Furiosa drives the war rig and saves the virgin wives, but the men are the real conductors in this universe.

This much becomes clear within 30 minutes of the film when the rig makes a pit stop after a particularly intense chase scene. Max stumbles upon Furiosa and Immortan Joe’s five (supermodel) wives clad in diaphanous white fabrics, cutting off their chastity belts. Max, who is still disoriented from the crash and from having been used as a “blood bag” by the sickly war boy Nux, is initially antagonistic towards the women. Once Nux comes to, eager to return the wives to Joe, Max’s role quickly shifts to that of protector. Max fights off Nux, herds the women back onto the rig, and the set off again towards the mythical “Green Place.” The rig is soon besieged by Joe and his gang and Max finds himself protecting, fighting, and repairing the rig, all while the women cower inside the cab of the rig. Furthermore, it is revealed that Nux has stowed away on the rig. He soon develops an emotional relationship with one of the wives and transitions from antagonist to coven protector.

Ultimately, after a series of chase scenes and intense pyrotechnical feats, the gang arrives at the Green Place, and finds the place barren and populated by a group of leathery crones called the Vuvalini. Even though Furiosa claims to have made the run to the Green Place several times before, she appeared to be unaware of the Green Place’s actual condition. She also learns that her matriarchal clan has been decimated, its members dwindling down to the last. Realizing that the Shangri-la that she intended to deliver the girls to does not exist, Furiosa cooks up an abortive plan involving riding into the desert on motorbikes with 160 days of provisions. Realizing the plan to be nothing short of suicide, Max presents Furiosa with a map outlining a path back to the Citadel, the only semblance of a society that still exists. On the chase back to the Citadel, Furiosa is gravely injured, Nux sacrifices himself to ensure that the women may return to the Citadel safely, and Max provides Furiosa with a blood transfusion. At the movie’s conclusion, Max slips off into the crowd, allowing Furiosa and the wives to return to the Citadel victoriously.

This is no feminist fantasy. This is brutal realism, patriarchy at its finest. While Furiosa is the spitting image of the “strong, independent woman who don’t need no man,” she nevertheless does need a man (several men in fact) to help liberate the wives from Joe. Furiosa is employed by Joe, and her position as right hand woman (heh) is what gave her the latitude to have the audacity to steal his wives from right under his nose. As the action heats up in the desert, it becomes manifestly clear that Furiosa and the wives rely on Max both materially and emotionally. Max is the one who must make the physical and psychic sacrifices to facilitate the women’s freedom. It is Max who ventures into the dark to recover ammunition and returns covered in blood. It is Max who battles off hostiles on top of a moving rig. It is Max in all his taciturn splendor who the women turn to when they are inquieted by a sudden and unexpected turn of events.

This theme deepens once Nux defects to the good side. One of the wives quickly develops a bond with Nux and he quickly develops a sense of responsibility for her well-being. Many a wistful gaze and truncated wave is shared; many a sleepy nuzzle shared in the rig’s cab. Ultimately, Nux literally self-immolates to insure that the wives are ushered to safety, at last obtaining his elusive entry to Valhalla. This is pure chivalry: that a male character would sacrifice himself for the female characters

Analyzing the last third of the film does nothing to dislodge this hypothesis. If anything, it highlights just how patriarchal the world of Fury Road is. The Green Place turns out to be a mirage. The stark reality is that this fabled place was naught but a desert wasteland inhabited by a nomadic band of women vainly attempting to eke out an existence in the barrenness. Their only link to life and civilization is a case of seeds carried around by one of the elders. Thus we see the futility of matriarchy: it created nothing and could sustain nothing. It could not protect the downtrodden. Far from being a powerful and independent force, matriarchy is fundamentally weak and dependent, powerless to offer even a modicum of solace to the oppressed. Furiosa took the wives away from the forces of masculine oppression, signified by Joe and the society of the Citadel only to bring them into the hopeless abyss.

The return to the Citadel is also telling. The Vuvalini understand that they cannot help the wives and were themselves eager to return to the Citadel. The Citadel is the only semblance of civilization remaining, a true oasis in the nuclear desert. The return to the Citadel is the acceptance of the failure of matriarchy and is the tacit recognition that a return to the masculine is the only thing that will preserve life. The Return to the Citadel is the characters prostrating themselves before the supremacy of masculinity and its ability to synthesize life out of the void, to create civilization out of nothingness.  In this world, women are not the equals of men, nor could they be. The harshness of the environment necessitates hierarchy and precludes modernist fantasies of gender equality. Even Max’s blood transfusion to Furiosa is testament to this life giving property of the masculine. The protector of life becomes the resurrector from death in the face of all but certain oblivion. For all its feminist posturing, Fury Road is a paean to masculine virtue that succeeds in its honesty and unforgiving realism.

Book Review: The Fourth Political Theory

The Fourth Political Theory

By: Alexander Dugin

 214 pp. Title available for free with a subscription to Kindle Unlimited

 Rating: 2.5/5

This book is not for the faint of heart.  A stem-winder of metaphysics, deep right thought, and mysticism, Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory launches salvo after salvo at the ascendant (but degenerate) liberalism of the day and its perceived progenitor: the United States. Dugin came to my attention about a month ago after listening to a podcast in which he discussed his work and his philosophical orientations.

Often credited as the architect of Putin’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy as well as his intensely conservative domestic policies, Dugin’s hodgepodge offerings in The Fourth Political Theory are precisely what one would expect—incredible antagonism towards the West in general and the United States in particular, incoherent calls for the resurrection of long dead Traditionalism, eschewal of progress, technological skepticism, and ultimately the resurgence of a “Eurasianist” Russia that presides over an unstable coalition composed of the “liberal” West’s enemies.

The book while decently written, is at the same time pedantic and esoteric. The book’s main premise is this: the 20th saw the rise of predominant political ideologies, each vying for supremacy: liberalism (the subject of which is the individual), communism (the subject of which is class), and fascism (the subject of which is the state).  Fascism in Dugin’s view, died a quick death in its infancy due to the horrific legacies of such characters as Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.  Communism enjoyed a much longer shelf life but perished nonetheless; this death was signaled by the 1991 collapse of the former Soviet Union.  Liberalism, as the first political theory and heir to the Enlightenment, vanquished the second and third theories and stepped into the political void where it now exists unchallenged, as an assumption rather than a proposition:

“When liberalism transforms from being an ideological arrangement to the only content of our extant social and technological existence, then it is no longer an ‘ideology,’ but an existential fact, and objective order of things.”

Ultimately, Dugin views each of these philosophies as failures.  Fascism was too racist and bloody; communism was too godless and materialistic.  However, he is particularly angry with liberalism, as it has cut ties with Tradition and now advances its world view as the only acceptable and viable world view, to disastrous results.  To Dugin, liberalism disregards difference in order to impose a uniform set of values on the world and contains an inherent chauvinism that causes it to view the wholesale acceptance of its values as right and inevitable.  He scorns the “unipolarity” that liberalism creates and its philosophy of self-aggrandizement, radical individualism, irreligion, and Western chauvinism.  Dugin attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff of the three discarded ideologies in the interests of discovering a kernel of truth within each one to create a new, syncretic political ideology and an appropriate new subject for this ideology: The Fourth Political Theory.  This theory places itself in opposition to “postmodernity, the postindustrial society, liberal thought realized in practice, and globalization, as well as its logistical and technological bases.”  The theory is fundamentally atavistic, Traditional, essentially religious, and admittedly irrational.

The book begins on a strong note with its takedowns of the three political philosophies and its accurate descriptions of the grotesqueries that unchecked liberalism has visited upon the world. The book is also correct in calling for a return to traditional modes and mores through religion, hierarchy, and family, but its interest ends there. Dugin’s true apocalyptic agenda is quickly revealed:  (1) the destruction of America (2) the destruction of the individual (3) bringing about the end of days with a concomitant return to pre-rational modes of existence.  Quoth Dugin:

“We must strike the individual, abolish him, and cast him into the periphery of political considerations.”

“Liberalism must be defeated and destroyed, and the individual must be thrown off his pedestal.”

“Only a global crusade against the US, the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response”

“If someone deprives us of our freedom, we have to react.  And we will react. The American Empire should be destroyed.”

Dugin is essentially a leftist whose critique of the Left comes from even further left. His “traditionalism” is simply the mask that his reconstituted version of communalism wears, as evidenced by his opposition to development, to the individual and to progress.  When Dugin cites “traditionalism,” he’s not referring to traditionalism in the context of developed societies; he’s referring to tradition as it would have developed in the Paleolithic age.  Tradition as it naturally occurs in the state of nature.  Dugin would be more than happy to throw the world into a second Dark Age, to cut down the tree of modernity, negatives and positives alike, rather than simply prune its decayed branches.

Ultimately, the book fails on several fronts. Dugin regularly conflates “liberalism” and “leftism,” using them interchangeably throughout the book.  “Leftism” is a cancer, on this we can agree.  Or do we? Are we talking about the “leftism” that has given rise to transsexualism, feminism, repressive tolerance, gay rights, transhumanism, identity politics and etc.?  Or are we referring to “liberalism,” which brought the world concepts of limited government, property rights, freedom of speech and conscience, due process, and equality before the law? While The Fourth Political Theory correctly concludes that certain features of postmodernity are absolutely repugnant, it does not properly distinguish between the two and thus mischaracterizes the cause.  Furthermore, Dugin does not establish why tradition would be incompatible with Enlightenment principles.

We can agree that the West, and the US in particular is now like a patient with a gangrenous limb.  The limb represents the forces of ultra-leftist postmodernity that has brought the world a veritable circus of degeneracy, the fifth column that is destroying the West from within.  Where we diverge, however, is how we choose to treat this patient.  As one who despises the leftward tendency of the West and believes in tradition, I believe that the patient (the West) can be saved were the dead limb to be cut off and the wound cauterized.  Dugin would rather euthanize the patient in order to give the hospital bed to another patient (Russia and its coalition of Traditionalists).  Dugin opts to ignore the existence of this fifth column and imputes their perverse agenda to the entirety of the West, using this as a pretext to call for the West’s destruction.  Indeed, rather than identifying the globalist Left for what it is—the source of both the decay and the increasing unipoliarity of the world—Dugin extends the olive branch to the Left, confusingly inviting it to join his coalition of Tradition as an ally.

Furthermore, his denunciation of the US is based upon a conception of the US that has not really existed in 70 years.  Dugin sees the US as an imperialist power, eager to spread its values of materialism and liberalism at all costs.  However, a quick look at the US puts the lie to this claim. The Obama Presidency has seen the adoption of European style socialism in the arenas of health care and trade.  It has seen the liberalization of relations with illiberal regimes that had long been sanctioned. It has also seen the US throwing off the mantle of “global police officer,” and withdrawing further into its own hemisphere where it disembowels itself to atone for its “privilege.”  Above all, this presidency has seen the acceleration of leveraging, miring the country further and further in debt.  America is running on fumes.  America is not the powerhouse of Duginian fantasy and nightmare.

Of concern also is the nouveau ethno-Marxism that he proposes as “traditionalism,” that relies upon an unstable coalition of “the Rest” against the West, the adherents of tradition versus the agents of postmodern destruction:

“Politically, we have here an interesting basis for the conscious cooperation of the radical Left-wingers and the New Right, as well as with religious and other anti-modern movements, such as the ecologists and green theorists.”

“Another question is the structure of a possible anti-globalist and anti-imperialist front and its participants.  I think that we should include in it all forces that struggle against the West . . . [t]his means Muslims, Christians, Russians, and Chinese, both Leftists and Rightists, the Hindus and the Jews who challenge the present state of affairs…”

In accepting all cultures antagonistic to the West (and to each other) regardless of common values or features, Dugin also accepts that he may be preparing to unleash forces that will ultimately be beyond his control and will begin to cannibalize the both Fourth Political Theory and the coalition before unleashing great chaos upon the world.  In particular, Islam is an ideology that lusts for universal supremacy, not for alliance or coalition.  These pronouncements make it clear that Dugin is not opposed to unipolarity per se: he’s opposed to a unipolar world led by the US and the West.  He’s fine with a relatively unipolar world with Russia at the helm and a cavalcade of assorted cultures bringing up the rear.

Ultimately, the Fourth Political Theory’s greatest failure is the fact that it remains open by design and unfinished.  The Fourth Political Theory, in Dugin’s own words is “contemplation.”  It is not action, it is not design, it is simply thought and wishful apocalyptic thinking.  The Fourth Political Theory is a book that promises but never delivers.

Rules for Realists: 10 Tips for the Young Lady of Worth

It’s rare for me to bump into many kids substantially younger than myself anymore; just a sign that I’m one step closer to death. When I do interact with those in the 18-25 demographic, I’m always struck by two things: (1) how generally deluded about life they are and (2) how much worse the indoctrination has gotten since I was that age.

The problem is particularly acute for females, who tend to be more suggestible and are often diehard adherents of the “go along to get along” school of thought. Unfortunately, as societal indoctrination has grown all the more expansive and bizarre, the field of opinions that may be acceptably held and voiced has simultaneously contracted. Opinions that were considered laughably antiquated when I was 18 in 2005 (say, that women might be happier in the home or that it’s not economical for companies to hire pregnant women) are now considered thoughtcrimes of the highest order​ now that I am 28 in 2015. Expressing opinions like the former can now have catastrophic implications for one’s social life and possibly one’s employment opportunities.

Nonetheless, truth remains truth and the brave must not be afraid to speak it. Human nature will not be conditioned away by 50 years of false ideology. Men and women are as they have always been, and young girls especially ignore this fact to their peril (and great unhappiness). To that end, I have written a list of ten pointers for young girls. These are things that no one will tell you in this day and age, but that you should be aware of to avoid the lies put to you and the unhappiness that they will ultimately bring.

(1) Feminism is a Lie: feminism has jumped the shark. It has not been about equality or women’s rights in at least 30 years. At this point in its history, it is exclusively a misandrist, supremacist, and socialist movement that aims to torpedo relations between the sexes and to secure gimmedats for women at society’s expense using mechanisms of guilt and the machinery of the state. Feminists are insidious and will always try to get you to ignore both reality and your biological yearnings (for children, for a husband, for the hearth). They will try to convince you that the only meaningful things are being “educated” and having a job. Swallow this lie and you will squander your most fertile years in a cubicle, pushing papers at a job you hate, watching as your opportunity to have a family slowly fades away. Never make the mistake of believing that feminism has your best interests at heart. You must eschew this destructive ideology.

(2) Know yourself and order your life accordingly: what do you want out of life? What do you want to be? I will be the first to admit that being a wife and a mother is not for everyone. Some of you might be very ambitious honey badgers with big asses and big dreams. That is OK. What is not OK, however, is to go through your life on autopilot, blithely unaware of your desires. No one can “have it all” in life regardless of what feminists will tell you. Some choices necessarily foreclose others. If you want to be a go-get em’ tank grrrl career woman, then take the steps necessary to improve yourself and achieve your goals. HOWEVER: if family and relationships are your priority, realize that attending school until you are 30, moving from place to place, and incurring mountains of debt is a recipe for failure. You will not be an attractive prospect to men if you take this route. You need to be secure enough in yourself to avoid succumbing to the pressure to obtain more and more “education” and over leveraging yourself that will be put upon you by nearly everyone you will meet. You must realize that choosing one will make having the other substantially more difficult. You must prioritize.

(3) Read: turn off the goddamned TV. There is nothing of value there. Read deeply, improve yourself, learn new things. Read things that make you think; read things that make you laugh. Your erudition as compared to the average culturally lobotomized female in your age cohort will be noted. Furthermore, reading will endow you with the tools necessary to be a fully actualized individual and come to sensible conclusions about your world in a time when nonsensical pap is treated as gospel.

(4) Don’t Whore: do not believe the feminists. The rules are still the same in that the rules are still different for men and for women. Men are admired when they have lots of sex because sex is hard for them to get. Women are scorned when they have lots of sex because sex is easy for them to get (and because it cheapens the value of sex and makes men less likely to commit). Men do not wife whores. As a female, you will feel the worse for wear if your mileage is up. Sleeping around excessively will make it harder for you to pair bond with one man and makes it likelier that you will divorce in future.

(5) Stay in Shape: your personality is not the only thing that matters. Most men will not be attracted to the fat girl with the beautiful face, or the fat girl with the heart of gold. Men are visual and are attracted to visual cues indicative of health and fertility. Fat has never been one of those indicia. Being overweight will impair your chances of obtaining a high value man who maintains attraction for you. Do not believe the hype (fatkini, HAES) Fat acceptance is a cancer, and there is nothing wrong with looking good. If you’re currently eating right and maintaining an exercise regimen, good on you. If you currently aren’t where you’d like to be physically then get a gym membership (make sure to do weights AND cardio), dial in your diet, and work towards your goals. The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.

(6) Don’t be a harridan: living that virago lyfe will leave you single in a kitty litter scented apartment. You can be “strong” and “independent” without being strident and annoying. Learn how to radiate strength rather than shouting strength from the mountaintops and pushing people around.

(7) Have reasonable expectations: not everybody is beautiful. Not every body is beautiful. If everyone were beautiful, no one would be beautiful. Not everyone will have a life of wealth and leisure. Leagues are real. You must be aware of where you stand on the 1-10 scale and act accordingly. If you are a 5, do what you can to improve and be honest with yourself. Female fives do not get male tens, except in the rarest of instances. If you are an average girl (and most are), learn to be happy with the average guys who will take interest in you. The alternative to this is to be pumped and dumped by attractive players who will never commit to you, negatively impacting your happiness and your self worth. Never confuse being realistic for being fatalistic.

(8) Develop cooking skills: there is nothing more disgusting than a woman who takes pride in not being able to cook. Aside from being unable to feed yourself, it projects an image of slovenliness and worthlessness. Cooking is one of the most fun and meaningful things you can do for yourself and for others. It will also make you healthier and more attractive as a partner.

(9) Develop domestic skills more generally: learn how to decorate. Keep your home tidy. Learn how to sew, if the fancy strikes you. Overall, learn how to turn a house into a home. This ability will also make you more attractive as a partner.

(10) Do not listen to your female friends: like it or not, they are always in direct competition with you and will dispense advice to you that will cause you to take serious losses. They don’t know what men want, they don’t know what they want, and odds are that they’re thoroughly indoctrinated and will give you drone advice that will lead to disaster. Don’t listen to them about “career” advice, don’t listen to them about romance, don’t listen to them when they say that you’re “too young” to do X, Y, or Z. Reality must always factor into any considerations that you make. Most young females have a tenuous grasp on reality as it is. Their advice often reflects this.

That’s all I have. Stay up, girls.

The Physics of Discrimination

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” 

Working as a fund consultant in higher education exposes one to the good, the bad, and the downright ugly, as it relates to donor relations and the establishment of privately endowed funds. It is also instructive, in that it enables those with critical eyes and liberated minds to recognize microcosmic trends indicative of stresses within society at large that explode and indict so many of the prevailing narratives of our epoch.

One such noticeable trend has been an uptick in donor requests to endow a certain variant of fund, one that we’ll call here “affinity funds.” Simply put, these are funds requiring that the beneficiaries of the fund proceeds be members of some specific racial, ethnic, religious, or gender group. While not unique in and of itself, what is unique is the demographic shift that has been occurring within the groups of individuals now seeking to endow affinity funds, the vehemence with which they express their preferences, and the frequency with which these endowment requests are being received.

Some background exposition is necessary. The institution is currently in the process of reevaluating its endowment policies. Top brass wants to ensure that funds are constitutionally consonant, in that newly accepted funds will not include preferences that could potentially be deemed discriminatory. (Now, in practice this will likely only be used as a pretext to reject the odd retrograde fund attempting to reserve funding for males/whites/over represented in higher education minority groups, but that is a discussion to be reserved for another post). This sea change comes after years of accepting privately endowed funds that explicitly preferred women and minority groups (URMs in higher ed speak) to the exclusion of nearly all other considerations.

However, as the institution is attempting to transition from accepting restrictive endowments into establishing endowments with broader terms, we are seeing an increase in donors attempting to endow funds specifically for males/whites/over represented in higher education minority groups (using coded language, of course), requesting infernally restrictive terms and opting to walk away from endowing funds with the institution altogether if the demands are not met. A number of coworkers are perplexed by these developments, but any blind man could see what is happening here.

Unfairness begets unfairness. Discrimination begets discrimination. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Confronted with a clear imbalance, humans will always seek to restore balance.

The reality in higher education is that there is almost no funding available to average, male, and non-URMIHE kids. Actually, funding for exceptional students of these descriptions is damn near non existent as well, as higher ed is shifting away from merit based awards to need based awards. These kids are just not sought after commodities in the higher ed market, as they fail to check off enough of the right boxes. Within the he present day catechism of diversity, these are the unholy. Within the context of the contrived “privileged versus oppressed” dialectic of the age, these students are privileged and must be hobbled in the name of equality.

What is taking place is obvious and infinitely rational. Donors identifying with these students are not blind to the ways in which the entrenched multi-cult zeitgeist works to (paradoxically) exclude certain groups in the name of diversity and to privilege “good” demographics over “bad” ones and are throwing all of their weight behind their endowments, in a bid to restore balance to a landscape that is completely off kilter as a result of government sponsored “positive” discrimination and a cultural climate that is increasingly hostile to groups that most often tend sit at the pinnacles of success.

It’s impossible to ignore that this trend has been manifesting itself within the larger society as well as people are becoming increasingly aware of the inconsistencies inherent within liberal narratives. Faced with the imposition of ironclad mandates of multiculturalism and diversity issued by cultural commissars, people have responded by digging in their heels and becoming increasingly nationalistic and tribalistic, a backlash that has been largely unanticipated and surprising in its furor to those most invested in propagating the multicultural/diversity/oppressed versus oppressor narratives. The social engineering overlords have inadvertently triggered an extreme reaction trending in the opposite direction, a corrective force antagonistic to the countervailing social doctrine of inclusive exclusion.

Agenda Uber Alles!

We at Unthinkable Thought endeavor to improve our readers through engagement. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. In that spirit, we present this article. Try to identify the various and sundry leftist agenda items floating around in this piece.

We count three. Listed in order of decreasing prioritization: (1) the sexual fluidity shibboleth of the latter day leftist intelligentsia (2) the “women are wonderful/alternative lifestyle” dogma in full effect to downplay the high incidence of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships (3) the denigration of red states and conservative thought more generally.

A New York Times first: an indoctrination piece cum wedding announcement. The first line reveals to the critical reader all they need to know.

These days, even in conservative Arizona, same-sex weddings are a dime a dozen. But this one was different. This was a marriage between a gay woman and a straight woman.

The dissimulation and agenda pushing begin immediately. Firstly, of what import is it that Arizona is a conservative state?  This smug factoid is of no relevance to the subject of the article. It is no more than a liberal glorying in fact that a red state has been forced to adopt a blue state pet project as policy and an attempt to marginalize conservative thought.

Secondly, to state the obvious: straight women don’t marry other women. A woman who marries another woman cannot be “straight” by any definition of the word. So the assertion that this is the union of a “gay woman and a straight woman” is nonsensical, ludicrous on its face.  Nonetheless, we know that the Left excels at deriding the obvious as unsophisticated while propounding the most improbable and logic-defying conclusions. Occam’s Razor is a theoretical nullity to them, so wedded are they to their bankrupt and profoundly illogical ideology.

So what purpose does this obvious lie serve? The aim here is to mainstream the notion of the fluidity of sexuality and sexual attraction, while casting doubt on the notion that sexuality and sexual attraction are are fixed from birth for the majority of human beings. The article pulls no punches in this regard:

At the same time, this union of two fiercely competitive athletes is raising sometimes uncomfortable questions about same-sex domestic violence, professional sports policies, gender blending and society’s obsession with celebrities as role models.

The breathless endorsement of “gender blending” is an outgrowth of the primary theory undergirding the philosophy of the counterculture: deconstruction. It is the lionization of the freakish; it is the spoliation of all sacred cows. It is the muddling, demoralization, and then razing of society so that a collectivist phoenix may rise from the ashes of the individualist modes preceding it.

To the Leftist, human nature must be denied and then radically deconstructed. Reality must be redefined to reflect the precepts of their warped ideology. Biology is a hurdle to be surmounted by hook or by crook. Internal theoretical consistency is irrelevant, so long as the lies, schizophrenia, and doublethink serve the purpose of advancing a radical agenda. Sexuality is fixed, except when it’s fluid (note that gay conversion therapy is en route to becoming outlawed, based on the notion that sexuality is inherent and can’t be altered). Nonetheless, the standard issue leftist will see nothing discordant with believing both that a straight woman could marry a gay woman and still be considered “straight” and that the fixity of sexuality is so all-encompassing as to militate against therapies aimed at making gay people straight. Heterosexuality, fluid; homosexuality, fixed.

Contrast the Left’s views on sexuality with its views on sex. According to progressive thought, sex is dynamic and may be changed on a whim (note the rise of surgical and hormonal sex reassignment therapies). How could it be that surgical therapy for someone who feels like the opposite gender is appropriate when traditional talk therapy for an individual who feels an attraction to the same sex is verboten? There is no consistency behind any of the Left’s assumptions. These are mere articles of faith, dogma over which logic has no dominion.

Our intrepid New York Times author writes on:

After the news of the couple’s recent arrests, fans, national sports columnists, domestic violence experts and social-media trolls eagerly weighed in. Would they still marry? Should they marry? Should they be suspended from the league? Could they help raise awareness about same-sex domestic violence?

Would everyone just back off and leave them alone already?

Notice how the violence is downplayed. We are implored to overlook the fact that lesbian relationships are amongst the most volatile and violent. We are “trolls” for inquiring as to the wisdom of two women in a relationship with clear instabilities pursuing marriage in spite of relationship violence that landed them both in jail. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a similarly situated heterosexual couple gets into a spat, go to jail, and are congratulated for making the questionable choice to stay together and tie the knot like it’s nobody’s business, in spite of the turbulence within the relationship. In fact, we don’t have to imagine. We know exactly what would happen.

In this day and age, when propaganda can be found in nearly everything one lays eyes on, it is imperative that you stay vigilant and that you cast a critical eye on everything that you read lest you be led astray by pretty lies.