Perfecting the machine

The deconstruction of race, gender and whatnot rolls on:

  • Not surprisingly, a conference on race agrees it’s a social construct, and also not surprisingly the conclusion is that everybody—especially Americans, who are apparently more racist than other people—has to be re-educated. The scholars are meeting to figure out how to spend $4 million from the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation to create a traveling museum exhibit presenting correct views on race.
  • Oprah Winfrey, sob sister supreme, gets in over her head with a show featuring children who say they were born with bodies of the wrong sex. The show featured an 11-year-old girl who wants to be a boy and whose parents let her live that way, and an expert who called such children “archetypal warriors on the cutting edge of that space between the two polarities that we hold onto so tightly” and suggested “[p]erhaps it would serve us all to go to that place … ”
  • If you do go to that place in California, the state requires school boards to have programs in place to make sure everyone treats it as A-OK and the same as normality, even though on one school board three trustees are resisting
    . The reporter points out that “the trustees’ stance has infuriated parents, teachers and other trustees who have accused the three of imposing their religious beliefs on the district” by failing to adopt a regulation the district had never felt moved to adopt on its own. (Also see my previous entry on the situation.)

  • Going to that place you may even qualify you for financial benefits, especially if you can claim victimization by all the unreconstructed bigots out there: Homosexual students offered special college scholarships.
  • The movement to deconstruct the relationships traditionally fundamental to human life has even spread to Muslim countries, at least to resolutely laicist Muslim countries that want to become members of the EU: Turkey drops proposal to criminalize adultery. It’s routine in overregulated societies like the EU to criminalize violations of important obligations relating to social institutions that matter. If you think marriage qualifies by that standard it seems you’re not just unwise or wrong, you’re a human rights violator.
  • Which brings us to the function of all these measures in the current regime: the abolition of every social institution and relationship that could support some measure of stability, self-organization or self-government apart from the public, formal, and therefore controllable market and bureaucratic institutions that are the only institutions liberalism accepts as legitimate.

15 thoughts on “Perfecting the machine”

  1. See ctheory

    The ultimate challenge for culture marxists is the remaking of male sexuality. In their headlong flight from Nature and towards the self-defined and, of course, equal individual the marxian left would have us set down our masculinity in perpetuity. The tool that they wish to employ to this end is transsexualism, predicated upon the feminist critique of we males as existing already in a cultural end-game (“hysteria”). Browse the cutting edge marxist site:-

    … because that’s where you can observe these psychotics planning our freudian-marxist rebirth.

    It is not safe to write off such lunacies. The suggestibility of the human psyche argues for them, at least at a superficial level. Five decades ago it would have seemed preposterous, impossible that healthy-minded white men and women would obediently swallow the anti-racist meme. They did but that is not yet enough for the left. It does indeed want to perfect the machine.

    Best to keep your legs crossed.

    • White Christian men are a thorn in the New Nomenklatura’s side.
      Guessedworker is of course exactly right (today, 4:41pm). And there’s this: The Marxists also perceive (correctly) that men, white Euro Christian men in particular, are what most stand in the way of their gaining unchallenged power. Manhood, therefore, must be eradicated, together especially with whiteness and Christianity. Together these are the threefold bane of Marxism. As the crucifix is to the vampire, so these are to the Marxist.

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • Marxist
        Can we all agree that the only Marxists who still exist are either safely contained in academia and in the fevered imaginations of the ultra-right?


        • Hegemonia ad infinitum
          “Can we all agree that the only Marxists who still exist are either safely contained in academia and in the fevered imaginations of the ultra-right?”

          Ask John Fonte. Ask Lee Harris. Ask Sean Gabb. Are these the ultra- right? Or are you merely ignorant of identity politics, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender politics, gay rights et alia – opposition to which has nothing to do with ultra-anything! More likely perhaps, are your personal or group interests advanced by one or all of these evils and you are not ignorant of them at all, but merely wish to obfuscate the issue for us?

          If I malign you unjustly on that score still I cannot excuse your comment. Those who refuse pointblank to understand what is taking place in every western society, those who are complacent, those who are indifferent or incapable stand foursquare with the neo-marxist left. For the one impossible outcome of their action – or lack of action – is that our people should someday peaceably save themselves and their hegemony in their own homeland.

          It is not just marxists who are the enemy of western man. It is you and your kind, too.

        • Can we all agree that the onl
          Can we all agree that the only Marxists who still exist are either safely contained in academia and in the fevered imaginations of the ultra-right?

          Ahh if only it were true, unfortunately the US has adopted the 1908 Socialist platform in it’s entirity ( and has completed 8 of the 10 “goals” of Communism out of the Communist Manifesto

          Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

          1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

          2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

          3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

          4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

          5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

          6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

          7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

          8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

          9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

          10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

          (Communist Manifesto)

          In fact the canidacy of John Kerry is so conducive to the goals of the Communist Party of the US, they didn’t even bother to run a candidate this time!
          The CPUSA party platform is virtually indistinquishable from the Democrat party platform and to be fair there are several points of agreement with the Republican party platform!

          The illusion that Communism is dead since the collapse of the Soviet Union is deliberate, many of the major figures remain very active – particularly under the cover of environmental groups (we call these “watermelons” green on the outside, red on the inside ). Here’s an interesting tidbit:

          During the 1980s, Communist regimes tolerated environmental organizations that were perceived as apolitical. The Czechoslovak Union of Nature Conservationists, for example, had hundreds of branch offices (Tolles and Beckmann 2000:8). But with the collapse of Communism in 1989, some 180 new environmental groups were founded each year to address the problems of dying forests, air pollution, undrinkable water, and threatened biodiversity as well as to seize the opportunity to have a larger voice in public policy (REC 1997:16; Salamon et al. 1999:18; Tolles and Beckmann 2000). The total number of environmental groups in 15 CEE countries jumped from about 800 in 1992 to 3,000 in 2001; some 46,000 people now volunteer in environmental efforts in those countries (Atkinson and Messing 2002:11).

          As well as a link to a side by side comparison of Sierra Club press releases and CP USA press releases:

          “A lie told often enough becomes the truth. “

          -V.I. Lenin

          Leninism expressly advocated the use of deception as the tool of the socialist.

    • There’s no official position
      Various things I and others have said can be found through the search box. In general though:

      • I don’t believe I’ve ever presented positions or arguments that depend on biological race differences. I think what I’ve said on the topic of race or ethnicity has to do with cultural differences — differences in habits, atttitudes, loyalties, expectations, historical memories and whatnot, all of which hang together in functional systems within groups that normally shouldn’t be disrupted intentionally.
      • Even as such, I think it’s a mistake to think of ethnic differences as “socially constructed,” as if some essentially non-ethnic society existed somewhere that then proceeded to construct ethnic differences. The things mentioned above that make for ethnic differences are the same things that construct society. Since “society” is a higher-order (more universal and abstract) thing than ethnicity it makes more sense to think of “society” as “ethnically constructed” than the reverse.
      • The evident purpose of speaking of “the social construction of race” is to promote the absolutism of the modern administrative state. The factors mentioned above involved in ethnic differences are to be done away with as material factors in social life, because they differ for different groups and are therefore unjust, leaving only the market and the ostensibly value-free state bureaucracy.
      • Having said all that, I think it’s quite clear that there are biological racial differences that have material implications for conduct. No matter what system of equal and multicultural education is instituted you aren’t going to find the abilities necessary to be a good lawyer, a good mechanic and a good sprinter equally spread through a population consisting of equal numbers of randomly chosen Ashkenazi Jews, Eskimos and black West Africans. The will to believe otherwise is I think another instance of the will to state absolutism — human nature doesn’t exist, so to bring about utopia all you have to do is give our rulers enough power.
      • It’s of course easy to define “race” in such a way that no such thing exists. The same can be said for almost anything that has to do with human life. Scholarly insistence on doing so is evidence of an institutional problem within scholarship, understood as an activity oriented toward disinterested pursuit of truth. For my own part I don’t feel the call to provide a formal definition of the term, since I don’t normally use it. I don’t take seriously the claims that the term is a pure figment but don’t see that anything material in the things I’ve written rides on the issue.

      Rem tene, verba sequentur.

      • The reality of race
        “It’s of course easy to define ‘race’ in such a way that no such thing exists.”

        What is especially stupid, given the academic precincts whence this notion proceeds, is that race is taken for granted in biology. I have had a long-standing interest in ornithology and odonata and lepidopera, and I can testify that ornithologists routinely refer to “races” of birds. Populations that exhibit a congeries of similar traits. Why such things can exist in all other animals but not in man is a question I’ve never heard anybody explain.

      • No Official Position is a Dodge
        Races do exist, and the acceptance of their existence is an acceptance of a true distinction between groups of humans based on athleticism and intellect. The problem, it seems, stems from a failure to treat others as equal in the eyes of God. God never intended we all live together under one language and culture; the story about the Tower of Babel is an example. Honor thy father and mother, not honor thy stranger. The Good Samaritan is an example of selflessness, but nowhere is there a negation of the Ten Commandments. The ideal is to give our brothers the shirt off our backs, but we don’t fail to defend the faith because the faith includes the destruction of Islam, which happens to be predominately racial and extremely anti-Christian.

        Jesus overturned the Temple tables in anger. Anger is not evil if used in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Paul Henrí.

        • Slam Dunk
          Paul Henri nails it. Wonderfully stated. If there were more Catholics like Mr. Henri, I’d consider converting. God, in his own infinite widom, created different races and ethnicities. Why are some so obsessed in destroying them – and one in particluar? Rebellion against God’s created universe.

    • “If race is not a construct, what is it?” — Dave Fiore
      This question (9/18, 7:43 am), reflecting a widely-repeated Marxist sophistry (“There are no such things as different human races”), was addressed a bit indirectly today by Dienekes Pontikos (a blogger whose interests include race and culture) in a comment (at 12:02 am) in the comments section appended to this log entry:

      “Caucasoid and Negroid are two of the clusters that emerge when a priori unlabelled individuals are grouped based on large numbers of gene loci or phenotypic variables.”

      (Mongoloid is another of the main clusters; some would say Amerind is a fourth main one; and there are sub-groups such as the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid race, etc.)

      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • Social Construct?
        Thanks to Mr. Scrooby for nailing this leftist lie. I’ll add a couple of questions to the poster who implies that race doesn’t exist.

        1. If race doesn’t exist (one of the left’s stock arguments), why do leftists see such a great need for racial preferences, set-asides, and the other myriad programs promoting racial socialism?

        2. If race doesn’t exist, why are leftists so apoplectic about police profiling that might take a non-existant factor into account?

        It’s yet another example of the left getting away with talking out of both sides of their mouths. Somewhat like the NY Times’ recent description of Dan Rather’s forged memos – the Times’ belief that the memos are fake but accurate.

  2. The E.U. digs its own grave and that of all others who touch it.
    From the log entry:

    “The movement to deconstruct the relationships traditionally fundamental to human life has even spread to Muslim countries, at least to resolutely laicist Muslim countries that want to become members of the EU […].”

    To be fair, wasn’t Turkey’s deep-sixing of the bill imposing penalties for adultery forced by the E.U.’s oh-so enlightened, oh-so superior leftist élites? It was forced by a culture external to Turkey’s indigenous one (if you can call the E.U.’s reigning post-modern leftism “a culture”—and that’s a very big if…).

    “If you think marriage qualifies by that standard it seems you’re not just unwise or wrong, you’re a human rights violator.” (— from the entry)

    Exactly! What about the human rights of wives? Don’t wives have any rights, qua wives? A truly civilized society would say they do. A truly civilized society would defend wifehood. The section of the E.U.’s human rights charter which the Turkish bill was said to potentially violate—section eight, if memory serves — left open the possibility of justifying the imposition of penalties for adultery based on adultery’s violation of wives’ rights (and also, incidentally, based on the legitimacy of measures aimed at preservation of public morality—read the code… so, it all depends, as they say, on whose ox is being gored). This flap did not involve elevated, disinterested jurisprudence but crass left-liberal politics.

    What’s crass? Try this (to take just one example of the left’s gutter-level crassness): we in the West are always sniping at Islam for denying to women certain rights. Now, when it comes to protecting wives’ rights in a particular Islamic country, the left here flips because it might endanger the promiscuous-sex lifestyle the left institutionally favors to the very marrow of its bones! Everybody got that? A law striving to strengthen social morality at large and the rights of wives in particular (and therefore, directly, of families) through the imposition of criminal penalties for adultery (which I personally wouldn’t support for my country, but it’s not my country or my religion and it’s none of my damned business if they want it for their country) cannot be allowed by the left because in the left’s twisted mind the protection of sexual promiscuity takes precedence over the protection of wives and families! This is both crassness and hypocrisy rolled into one.

    As for what motivates Moslems in general to loathe and attack us, there’s something to be said for this notion that it’s partly our influencing the rest of the world toward degenerateness—the same degenerateness worshipped by the Western élite left. Three thousand years ago it was written:

    “When the ways of man please the Lord, he shall convert, yea, his enemies to peace.”
    Proverbs 16:7 (Wycliffe)

    “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.


Leave a Comment