Insanity & Doom Update XI

Race does not exist, so this group is just as diverse as any other group.

Item First, They Came for the Biologists: The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself.

Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas…

In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”

If they refuse to love Big Brother, sanction them. Race, of course, doesn’t exist, which is why students at Evergreen want to track it so assiduously and can think of little else.

The article notes “Ms. Heying is a former biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.” She is wife to Bret Weinstein.

Item Hotep FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

What is Hotep?

Hotep is a word that means “peace” and many other things. Hotep Nation is a group of people looking to restore integrity to the term “hotep” as it has been smeared by left-wing black media and the likes. Hotep Nation is about self-empowerment and self-accountability. Independence.

Why are Hoteps always coming for black people?

Many times it is a defensive response to the many attacks received but for the most part, it is tough love. The Hoteps want to see better for their black cousins and believe in their potential. It’s like a parent’s criticism of a child who will not push to reach their potential but instead chooses a path of excuses and complacency.

The hoteps are not an indication of doom, but a hint of sanity. Here are a group of people organizing themselves around a phenotype, people tired of others organizing things for them. And God bless them for that. They have curious views of religion and meat, however. We’ll certainly look at this phenomenon more later.

Item The attacks in Barcelona are part of a growing world-wide war: Islam stands as a judgment on the nations. It also stands as a judgment on thought itself.

Besides, potential Muslim violent incidents can and do happen anywhere in the world at any time. Almost the whole planet is now set up with various screenings and searches to protect from random Muslim jihadists. With massive recent Muslim immigration into Europe and America, however, few places in these areas are really safe. Western law and custom often work to the advantage of the jihadists. A new fear has become the norm in all societies in which citizens were once able to move about in their own cities and towns without worry.

This is from Father Schall, which rhymes with read it all.

Item In 1997, a 49ers fundraiser had a satanic ritual with sadomasochistic sex acts (first two paragraphs quote the LA Times, the second two the SF Chronicle)

And then there was the entertainment, all in the flesh: Male and female strippers. A 300-pound sadomasochist performing a live sex act. A leather-clad woman carving a pentagram into the back of a scantily clad man—and that was before her act really took off.

Immediately after the party, Davis told reporters he had no regrets. “Most people said it was the best party they’d ever been to,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “And it wasn’t anything compared to the after-party at my house.”…

Rev. Steven Johnson Leyba, an ordained priest in the San Francisco-based Church of Satan, had a satanic pentagram carved on his back as part of the entertainment at political consultant Jack Davis’ 50th birthday party Saturday night.

Davis’ evening of debauchery was attended by many of the city’s leading politicos and the top brass for the 49ers — the same folks who’ve hired Davis to convince San Francisco voters that the city needs a new football stadium.

“Jack Davis was/is a political consultant who is hired to help politicians with their campaigns. ” There is a video (at the main link) of the pentagram carving that is as bloody as you might expect.

These people don’t actually believe this stuff, of course.

Unalienable Rights — Guest Post by Kevin Groenhagen

MSNBC’s MTP Daily host Chuck Todd led off his September 27 show with a claim that Alabama Republican senatorial candidate Roy Moore “doesn’t appear to believe in the Constitution as it’s written” because Moore said our rights come from God.

It wasn’t the first time a member of the mainstream media scolded Moore for suggesting our rights come from God. After Moore told CNN’s Chris Cuomo “Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God,” Cuomo shot back, “Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith. That’s my faith. But that’s not our country.”

Moore is not the first Republican to be scolded by a member of the media after suggesting our rights come from God. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan reiterated this contention several times, including during his announcement speech on August 11, 2016. “But America is more than just a place…it’s an idea,” Ryan said. “It’s the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not government.” In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Ryan said, “… sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.”

Ryan’s declaration didn’t sit well with some, including Paul Waldman, a contributing editor for The American Prospect. “What Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding, this is an awfully odd notion once you stop to think about it,” Waldman wrote in a commentary posted on MSNBC’s website. “If God granted us rights like the freedom of speech, why did it take so long for Him to get around to letting us enjoy them? Why does God allow only some of his subjects to enjoy those rights, while millions or even billions live without them?”

MSNBC’s Touré offered a similar point: “[Paul Ryan] loves this line of ‘our rights come from God and nature,’ which is so offensive to so much of America. Because for black people, Hispanic people and women, our rights do not come from God or nature. They were not recognized by the natural order of America. They come from the government and from legislation that happens in relatively recent history in America. So that line just bothers me to my core.”

While Touré, an African-American, has appointed himself the voice of all minorities concerning the origin of our rights, it should be noted that Martin Luther King, Jr., the most visible spokesperson and leader in the Civil Rights Movement, agreed with Judge Moore and Speaker Ryan. Here is what King had to say on July 4, 1965 in his “The American Dream” speech:

It wouldn’t take us long to discover the substance of that dream. It is found in those majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, words lifted to cosmic proportions: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is a dream. It’s a great dream.

The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say “some men,” it says “all men.” It doesn’t say “all white men,” it says “all men,” which includes black men. It does not say “all Gentiles,” it says “all men,” which includes Jews. It doesn’t say “all Protestants,” it says “all men,” which includes Catholics. (Yes, sir) It doesn’t even say “all theists and believers,” it says “all men,” which includes humanists and agnostics.

Then that dream goes on to say another thing that ultimately distinguishes our nation and our form of government from any totalitarian system in the world. It says that each of us has certain basic rights that are neither derived from or conferred by the state. In order to discover where they came from, it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity. They are God-given, gifts from His hands. Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent, and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us, and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day, that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.

The obvious rebuttal to Waldman and Touré’s complaint is that men, and not God, prevented—and continue to prevent—millions or even billions from enjoying their God-given rights. As King noted in the same Independence Day speech, “Now ever since the founding fathers of our nation dreamed this dream in all of its magnificence—to use a big word that the psychiatrists use—America has been something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against herself. On the one hand we have proudly professed the great principles of democracy, but on the other hand we have sadly practiced the very opposite of those principles.”

“The truth is that rights have always been government’s to withhold or guarantee as it saw fit,” Waldman continued in his opinion piece. Former Attorney General Janet Reno shared a similar sentiment when speaking before a group of law enforcement officers: “You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom…than any other government in the history of the world.” As James Bovard noted in Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, “It is time to remind Washington that freedom is not something that the government gives the people—but something that citizens must jealously protect against the government itself.”

Unfortunately, the mistaken belief that rights and freedom come from men is not limited to those on the left. Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” has been popular amongst conservatives for nearly three decades because of its patriotic themes. However, that song has the following lyrics:

And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.

And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.

Men can fight and die to secure our rights. However, they cannot give our rights to us.

The leaders of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and other tyrannical governments believed, or continue to believe, that our rights and freedom come from government. However, our Founders understood if rights come from government, and not from God, then government can, as Walden suggested, withdraw those rights. If that is the case, then our Founders had no justification to declare independence from Great Britain in 1776. It would not have been possible for the king of Great Britain to violate their rights since his government would have had the exclusive power to decide which rights the colonists possessed as his subjects.

Waldman cavalierly dismisses the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, consider the word “unalienable,” which is defined as “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” Would you prefer a system in which your God-given rights cannot be taken away or one in which your rights are determined by the whims of whomever may be in control of the government at any given time?

Math: Old, New, and Equalitarian — A Review

I have a new paper out in Academic Questions, a review, “Math: Old, New, and Equalitarian.”

Springer is charging a mere pittance for viewing it. Only $39.95. But I think you can get a PDF from this link, through something Springer is called “SharedIt“. I’m not at all clear what it means, and I have no interest in discovering. As long as you can read the article, I’ll be happy.

Here’s the start…

There are three ways to teach math to the young. The old way forced rote memorization of basics and then, for most, stopped the lessons, continuing them only for those who had the inclination or ability to advance. The “new” way was to “expose” every student from the beginning, no matter their age or inexperience, to the highest, most difficult mathematical concepts, so that all might know how wondrous and astonishing math is.

The modern way, which may soon be upon us, is to let students define what math is to them or their culture, to let them discuss their feelings about what math means, and to work toward the goal of equality, that happy state when all are satisfied with their level of (self-defined) mathematical understanding. Two new books—The New Math: A Political History, by Christopher J.Phillips, and Critical Math ematicsEducation: Theory, Praxis, and Reality, edited by Paul Ernest, Bharath Sriraman, and Nuala Ernest—bring these distinctions to the fore.

People were long happy with the old way and for the happiest of reasons. It worked. Nearly every child eligible to attend school could be made to learn, or at least to memorize, that 8 x 7 = 56 and that triangles encompassed half as many degrees as circles and what simple consequences flowed from these facts. Not every child could advance beyond these basics, but few thought that all should.

That attitude began to change mid-twentieth century, a time in which greater proportions of children were enrolling in all levels of schooling.Because of the Cold War and the impression that America was falling behind, the concern was that kids weren’t learning enough and that they needed to be better thinkers. “New Math” was the result.

In The New Math: A Political History, Carnegie Mellon University assistant professor of history Christopher J. Phillips tells of its rise and fall, centering the tale on the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG), an entity created in earnest by government money during the Sputnik era: “Although originally funded to work on textbooks for the ‘college capable’ students in secondary schools, SMSG gradually expanded its operation, producing textbooks for every grade and type of student, including material for elementary schools, ‘culturally disadvantaged’ children,” etc. The ascension of New Math was thus partly due to routine mission creep found in well-funded bureaucracies.

At its onset, parents were more or less happy with the status quo. But education theorists and others were not. Students taught in the old way could cipher to the rule of three, but they didn’t know the why behind the how: “[O]ne generally accepted axiom was that math textbooks’ and teachers’ traditional reliance on memorization and regurgitation gave students a misleading sense of what mathematicians do and what mathematics was about.”

Yet is it really of interest what professional mathematicians do? Filling out grant requests, for instance? At any rate, what mathematics is about is something argued over by mathematicians themselves. This was true during the time of New Math…

Click the above link to get the PDF and read the rest (I think).

The True Power Behind Russia & The Coming Church, Part I — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

I can sum up the problems of Russia, all throughout her long national history, in one word. Autocracy. But it will take a bit longer to explain it. But you knew that, right? Of course. So let’s get to it.

The problem in explaining this word is that there are two versions of it. And each version has two faces. Just like Russia, and that crazy two-headed Byzantine eagle. This is why she is so hard to understand by outsiders, as no one seems to be meaning the same thing when they ‘talk’ about her. The problem here is rooted in us, however, as Westerners have forgotten something about the past. That part of the past that has been largely forgotten is the word ‘faith’.

Don’t believe me? Here, take a look at what the word means in dear old Angland these days. For the first time in a thousand years, the majority of the Anglish ‘have no religion’. And the much-less-than-half that still has it, hasn’t got it in the form the whole of them had for a thousand years before Henry came along. Nice work, Hank. Still feeling good about those wives? Still wearing that ‘Defender of The Faith‘ medallion? What’s the dress code like down there?

Nope, nobody believes anything of any real import on the Isle anymore. Except the Muslims, of course. But let’s be fair. I’m betting that these same people who have no ‘faith’ also have no patriotism, as it used to be known. I have no statistic to refer to here, but I’m willing to bet on it without the benefit of someone else’s research. I can sense it. Induction. In short, these Anglishmen have no real nationality. No identity whatsoever. No faith, no nation, no future. They are rootless, amorphous beings. Bland blobs of blubber and bone. They are simply consumers. Of whatever is being sold. And what is being sold is getting weirder every day.

Things aren’t as bad over here in the western half of The Empire. But the trendlines are the same. And our glorious leaders in ‘The Faith(s)’ are doing their damnedest to see that we catch up to our Enlightened brethren in the eastern half. Yes, it would be depressing, if I dwelt upon such things. So I don’t. I prefer to go on offense. Much more fun. I refuse to be paralyzed.

What has all of this got to do with Russia? Plenty, Komrade. Because, as I said before, these things we have forgotten in the West have not been lost in the East. In Russia, that is. And that is why we can’t understand them. We are two different species, in effect. Even if we spoke a common language, we still wouldn’t share a common dictionary. We have completely different meanings to core words. And one of those core words is Autocracy. And let’s admit it; the Western intellectual canon, both secular and ecclesial, has had very little use for the word for the last thousand years or so. Or has it?

I’m referring to the fact that there is another way we can express this word in the West. And our word for it, in a certain sense, is Autocephaly. That’s another Eastern thought, but only in its origin. Its use has spread abroad, as it has been one of the most successful exports of the East. For a thousand years in fact. Over here, we call it Democracy. We think for ourselves (supposedly), and then we act for ourselves. Two peas in a pod. The difference, then, between East and West? Over there, they do the opposite. But as I’ve said before, it’s the same pattern. Just a mirrored opposite.

Now I understand that you may be shaking your head, thinking that I am confused. But, no, I’m not. Remember, I don’t listen to what people say (even in the dictionary). I only watch what they do. And in Russia, there is a similar convergence between Autocracy and Autocephaly. The reason, of course, is simple. It’s rooted in the prefix: Auto. Self. And if there was a nation that was headed by an autocrat who also was the effective head of the autocephalous church, then these two ‘things’ become mutually reflective and reinforcing, to the point where they become one. One, in the person who embodies the ‘self’ that describes each sphere of action. Spheres that used to be separate. Civil and ecclesial. But not in Russia. Not for a thousand years. And not today. But beware of making the false assumption that there is only one Autocrat in Russia. This is where we make our mistake. Because we do not know her history.

Definitionally, there can only be one Autocrat at a time, correct? Unless, of course, we are talking about some Siamese Twins at the wheel of the ship of state and church. And that is exactly what I’m talking about. What? Outrageous? Well, are there such things in life, biologically speaking? Of course. Two actual separate beings who are not physically separate. They are joined together, without wedlock, for better or worse. And it’s got to be worse, for at least one of them. But is it always the same one? I contend it is not. Nor has it ever been.

Wasn’t there a Dostoyevskyan character like this? That woman his novel The Demons. (The Possessed, in the west; how appropriate.) Yes, that woman. She had two heads. One fully formed, fully functional. The other more like a stump, on her shoulder. Not really cognizant, but possessed of eyes. Not really aware, but not asleep/ More like in a trance. But obviously a separate head. And the first head kept begging the priest to baptize the other, her ‘sister’. Is this not Russia? And which was the Autocrat? And which was the Autocephalous one?

We’re back where we started. So, let’s start again. An autocrat acts by, and for, himself. The autocephalous one thinks by, and for, himself. So, think about it. Who acts before they have thought? Idiots do, of course. Animals too. But generally speaking, not men. Ideally speaking, that is. And actually, most men do not do both. At least not in that proper order. Most men, being only animals (by choice), will act first and think (rue) later. Others, being sloths, think always and never act. It is only when we do both, in the proper order, that we are truly men. But even that sequence guarantees nothing. Why? Because our thoughts can be, and often are, disordered. And our actions betray our thoughts. Which is why we are allowed to judge others by their fruits.

And thus, Russia. The Russia of autocephaly. The Russia of autocracy. The Russian body with two heads. Just like the Russian Eagle.

Now if you want to understand Russia, you will do no better than to read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s magnum opus, The Red Wheel. This trilogy tells us the story of what Russia was like just before the Bolshevik Revolution. (Note: Vol. III has just now shipped, if you’ve been awaiting the translation). This work explains it all, for those who will read. For those who will hear.

The first volume is August 1914, and it relates the story of a Russian officer who ends up traveling the length of the Eastern Front (German perspective, of course). This officer relates astounding stories of absolute idiocy, incompetence and insanity that ruled the Russian war effort and which resulted in incredible defeats at the hands of the vastly out-manned Germans. Manpower may be awesome, but you have to be able to maneuver, Komrade. Efficiency counts. And you’d better have your ammo with you. Jah. In this volume, we also come to see the incredible resilience of the Russian soldiers, who reflect the Russian people. Both peasant, gentry and nobility. Of course, there was little nobility amongst the nobility. But the nobles were at the wheel, and that explains their woes. At least, militarily.

It is the second volume, November 1916, that gets to the heart of the matter. The Autocratic heart of Russia. Obviously, this is just before the March Revolution that would propel Alexander Kerensky and his Masonic Trudoviks to power. This is the story of how they got there. They all (except the Bolsheviks) believed there could be a ‘soft’ revolution. An un-bloody change of state. Who are ‘they’? It was the nobility and the intellectuals. The Narodniks. And of course, the Kadets. You know, the Konstitutional Democrats.

Yes, there was a little play on words there. For these men, the Kadets, were the new Decembrists. That is, they were like those military men who opposed the ascension of Tsar Nicholas I to the throne upon the death of his older brother, Alexander I in December of 1825. Yes, Alexander, who had defeated Napoleon in Moscow in 1812. And these Decembrists mutinied in favor of Nicholas’ other older brother Konstantin, who had favored a constitutional monarchy.

Now here’s a funny thing. If Konstantin had taken the throne, as was his right, he would have been the Tsar of Russia as well as the Governor of Poland (where he resided at that time). And with his Polish Catholic wife, he might have re-united the Slavic world as well as the Catholic-Orthodox world. But it was not to be. Just as the Narodnik-Trudovik-Menshevik-Kadet dream of a soft revolution against the absolutely hard autocracy of the Tsar was not to be. And once again, Russia chose to embrace anything but the West. Including a Tsesarevitch who resided in the far east of the Polish West. So, this thought that there could be a soft revolution, wherein they could depose an autocrat (the Tsar) and create a new one without undue bloodshed, was not a new thought for the Russians of 1916. These were simply the ideological descendants of the Russians who throughout the 19th century believed the Autocrat could still be an autocrat while still being limited by a dreamed-for constitution. But isn’t that a paradox? Or at least an oxymoron?

Here;s how Solzhenitsyn explains it. Or, rather, his alter-ego, 2nd Lt. Alexander Lazhenitsyn. He’s the first character we meet in November 1916. An artillery officer, just like Solzhenitsyn. Decorated for bravery, just like Solzhenitsyn. A southern steppe Russian too, of course. And like his literary namesake, Solzhenitsyn he too would be trapped at the front (of the succeeding war) without sufficient ammo and precious little food. At the front, where he made the mistake of joking about Stalin in a letter to a friend. And that joke would land him in the Gulag for eight years. Yes, Lazhenitsyn is Solzhenitsyn. Both had the true faith, in a simplistic way. Simplicity is good, by the way. God is simple, you know.

Lt. Lazhenitsyn is sitting in his bunker one rainy night in November 1916, when he hears someone approaching. It was Father Severyan, the brigade chaplain. He had come back from the adjacent artillery battery where he had gone to minister to a dying trench mate of Lazhenitsyn. Lazhenitsyn, worried that the priest will be shot in the darkness by nervous sentries, persuades him to spend the remainder of the night in his dugout. Here is where the real action begins. The spirituality of Russia unfolds.

Lazhenitsyn is (dis)cussing the madness of the war. The priest reminds him that the natural state of fallen man is exactly that. War. And that just because there might be, for any period of time, a lack of overt hostilities between nations, mankind was still killing, robbing and hating each other in ernest. But they were doing it locally, amongst themselves. And that, over time, the same numbers were sinned against by the same number of sinners. It was only a perceived difference of time that distinguished open warfare between nations from the mundane internecine warfare of national life. The priest tells him that the purpose of the State is to restrain evil, but that it will spawn its own evil in return. Nevertheless, the state is a necessary thing, for the evil it restrains exceeds the evil it produces. Generally speaking, that is.

Eventually, after having dealt with Lazhenitsyn’s original question (the seemingly different madness of war), the topic of the Tsar arose. After all, had not the Tsar been responsible, in a large measure, for this war? At the very least, for the absolutely insane way that it was conducted? Did he, Nicholas II, not understand what was going on at the front under the ‘leadership’ of his incompetent cronies? Did he not bear much if not most of the responsibility for this slaughter? Why was he so paralyzed? Why did he listen to his damned wife, who was in thrall to Rasputin? Why could he not act on his own, apart from her, to remove men like Gen Samsonov, before they sent another division to the senseless slaughter (and Samsonov’s eventual suicide, in disgrace)? Was the Tsar not the Autocrat? Did he not possess the power to act? Was he not responsible for this senseless carnage that was robbing all of Russia of the flower of their youth? Whether peasant or gentry or nobility, they were all Russians, all equally needed by their nation. Why did the Tsar fail to act on behalf of Russia, and not her faithless allies? (Which makes me wonder. Why the cry for action? Where was the cry for thought first?)

At this point (p. 58) Solzhenitsyn’s story does a flashback to 1905, and the abortive revolution that followed the debacle of the Russo-Japanese war. This humiliation of Russian might (and her military hierarchy of the ignoble nobility) had loosed the terrorist spirit of those embittered Decembrists and their descendants who believed that revolution could be orderly, even peaceful. In this atmosphere of hatred for the Autocracy described in this section, Solzhenitsyn makes the seminal observation of Russia and her rulers; “Autocracy meant independence from other rulers, and certainly not arbitrary rule.” He was referring to the victory of Ivan III in 1480 over the last of the Golden Horde, to whom the Grand Dukes of Moscow had been paying tribute for 240 years, since the time of Alexander Nevsky, the Mongol puppet.

In other words, this additional title of Autocrat of All Russia claimed by Ivan III was a declaration to the world that all of Russia was independent of other nations. Forget Nevsky. But the Tsar was not to be independent of his people. Solzhenitsyn makes it clear that there was no conception of internal autocracy in the minds of the rulers and people of Russia, stating that “The Tsars of ancient Russia…made no division between themselves and the people, (they) were of the same mind.”
Further, Solzhenitsyn states that “Shipov affirms that when the Assembly of the Land (zemstvo) used to meet, there was never strife between it and the Tsar, and that there is no known instance of the Tsar acting contrary to the consensus; if he had parted company with the Assembly the Tsar would have only weakened his authority.”

The point, of course, is that an Autocrat acts on behalf of the nation. But the Autocephalous One does the thinking that precedes the action. So, next time we look at who that would be.