Notes to myself

The idea behind fanatical transgenderism is that reality is socially constructed, so denying Bruce Jenner is a woman is the same as annihilating the woman Caitlyn Jenner. It’s equivalent to murder, and implicitly to genocide.

But why do respectable people repeat this stuff, which you’d think they know is insane?

For some it has a bit of a potlatch quality. Reckless extravagance proves invulnerable status.

Progressives can simply look evil, because they’re so crazed. But there’s a whole theory of the world behind their views. Otherwise they wouldn’t be developing so uniformly or be so strong among formally educated people.

They believe in truth and righteousness. But it’s the “larger truth” that reflects necessary context: how bad and utterly disqualifying it is to stand in the way of obvious justice. It follows that whatever they do to you is justified.

“Left” means social justice, which means that social attitudes and connections are supervised and controlled by the guys at the top. The CEO of Goldman Sachs is a guy at the top.

I suppose someone could say “social justice” also means equality, but the left says all concepts are social constructions, so why wouldn’t the Goldman Sachs guy use his social power to construct “equality” as “I get everything”?

The thought behind the progressive claim that speech is violence is that reality is socially constructed, so denying Bruce Jenner is a woman is the same as annihilating the woman Caitlyn Jenner. It’s equivalent to murder, in principle to genocide. The claim is word magic, possibly primitive, certainly insane.

What happens to ethnic distinctions in an age of global capitalism and bureaucracy, and of electronic and physical means of communication that destroy distance? What happens to Christianity under such circumstances?

It’s not clear what exactly “whiteness” means but it’s a broad term. Documents used in official settings have declared merit and objectivity aspects of whiteness. And it’s not clear there’s a distinction between “whiteness” and “Western civilization.” Or between either and “white supremacy.”

The battle on the Right over Ukraine is part of a grand battle over civilization and humanity. Is it Eastern barbarism and the Hitler-of-the-week that are the great threats, or is the imperialistically woke and multicultural West the real problem?

Nihil sub sole novum:

The busts of twenty most illustrious families were borne in the procession, with the names of Manlius, Quinctius, and others of equal rank. But Cassius and Brutus outshone them all, from the very fact that their likenesses were not to be seen.

Tacitus

The Cowshed, a memoir of the Cultural Revolution by Ji Xianlin, a Chinese academic, suggests 1966 precedents for present-day situations:

The role of “privilege” (from the Introduction):

O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’

“Four.”

“And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?”

“Four.”

Someone sent me a story about the Pennsylvania senate race, and a Republican candidate whose firm handled — not very successfully — some of the investments for the state teachers’ pension fund. An opponent, the famous Dr. Oz, is raising it as an issue.

People who lived through communism tell me that a big difference between the political lunacy then and now is that people today actually believe what they’re told. That seems true. There doesn’t seem to be an inner circle running things that recognizes the difference between prolefeed and what’s actually going on. For all I know George Soros does, but who else?

It’s shocking and horrifying, but so far as I can tell it’s so. I’m constantly puzzling over this. Why has everyone gone bananas?

Some brief thoughts:

John Derbyshire notes that today Nazis are everywhere. Everybody our rulers find objectionable, including both sides in the Ukraine war, are Nazis. He says it’s “because they are mentally lazy and view the world in terms of simplified narratives.”

To my mind it’s less laziness than an extremely limited understanding of what’s real. As they say, ideas have consequences.