With this morning’s mail came this advertisement for agitprop from a minion of this Revolution.
“The Black Lives Matter movement and the resulting public reckoning have many educators urgently examining their classrooms for oppressive structures. If you’re looking to take action against androcentric, Eurocentric, and heterocentric knowledge in your classroom, I’d like to invite you to join me at a virtual conference I’m facilitating.”
I would say that educators intimidated by the BLM movement are anxiously examining their classrooms for “oppressive structures,” understanding this phrase to mean anything that might attract the attention or incite the ire of BLM. Having attracted this attention and tasted this ire myself, I cannot say that I blame them; although this does put me in a position to explain that an “oppressive structure” is any statement that challenges, contradicts or dissents from the dogmas of BLM.
This is called bullying by crying bully.
As you can see in the second sentence, these dogmas have very little to do with the ostensible purpose of BLM, which is promotion of less lethal methods to police pugnacious Black males who are, one presumes, overwhelmingly heterosexual. Thus a “public reckoning” with the ostensible purpose BLM would seem to require classrooms that are even more “androcentric” and “heterocentric.”
But we should not let ourselves be diverted into the trivial complaint that BLM is a front for something entirely different than BLM. We should instead see that this Revolution controls us with complaints about “oppressive structures,” and that an “oppressive structure” is any statement that challenges, contradicts or dissents from the dogmas of this Revolution.
It is, I fear, logocentric to speak of statements challenging, contradicting or dissenting from dogmas, and the truth is that this Revolution does not control discourse with even specious arguments. As my own experience with the ire of BLM has shown, it controls discourse with the pathos of tears. It’s minions will blubber that they feel excluded in order to shove you out the door, and they will sob that you have hurt their feelings in order to put some real hurt on you.
The Orthosphere 
Roman ambassadors viewed themselves as embodiments of the state, which made them prickly in diplomatic interactions. “Rome demands assistance from her loyal allies.” rather than “please send us wheat to fuel the campaign in Gaul”.
The message in your email reads to me like the Roman ambassador. “BLM Demands tribute from her allies!” The implication being if you do not attend, you are an And-Het-Euro-Centrist, and thus eligible for conquest, quite like the Gauls.
One must learn to understand everything they say as a veiled threat. “You are scaring me” means “You had better be scared of me.”
Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.
This week, we lament the passing of the 19th amendment. In April, somewhat relatedly, I posted this at another site about our nascent Branch Covidian cult:
* * *
It is unbelievable. I don’t know what’s behind it (in the proximate sense; the more indirect blame is obvious). Perhaps you’re right, but I’ve wondered whether what we’re really seeing is the Last Man cower to the Last Woman . . . men without chests unable to act rationally owing to the hysteria of an utterly feminized society. That and the wickedness of shameless tort lawyers who have wielded liability as a weapon, enriching themselves as they mug society of its last bits of good sense. Add a sensationalist and irresponsible media, and you get a toxic cocktail — our current public life in the West.
As I was growing up, I started noticing what I called a Nerf ball society. Nerf is a brand of “plushy” balls and sports equipment that people buy so that their children do not hurt themselves with hard surfaces. The best playground equipment was taken out, and playgrounds themselves became cushiony turfs. Lawn darts (Jarts if you had them) were banned. The old games were replaced with new, more sensitive activities. Bullies — that natural culling predator of childhood — were hunted to extinction. Normal childhood elements and behavior (from time immemorial) became conditions that had to be medicated and treated with therapy. Big Brother has morphed into Miss Trunchbull in our society where every politician promises that “we can never let [an unfortunate but regular feature of human life in a fallen world] happen again.” Regularly, all the soccer moms, Sex in the City vixens, and lesbian bookstore aficionadas will follow the harpy call of some “journalist” and put pressure on government officials to bring the power of the Big Daddy State to save them from whatever pest has got them buzzing for the day. Irresponsible and shortsighted legislation passes, always with some sickening name in tribute to a victim (Becky’s Law, Timmy’s Law, whatever). Then, shameless shyster lawyers expand the law beyond its already unreasonable limits through civil cases — or the mere threat of such cases. Corporate eunuchs fold, and the HR departments ensure that only such eunuchs fill their company’s positions. And so it goes. Evil bureaucracy for feasting on a disordered society, deracinated, bereft of tradition and of natural levels of social organization. All, of course, to keep us safe . . . to save lives . . . to make sure that some bad thing will never, ever happen again. Oh, I forgot about an educational system that makes sure people are ignorant, preferably stupid, and blind to anything beyond the shadow play they’re so generously provided. No old books allowed. And why read them, anyway, when everyone the day before yesterday was an evil bigot?
OK, that was a tangential tirade, but I am interpreting the insanity of the moment to be a natural development of our idiocratic evolution. Why should policies or regulations be based on evidence . . . when even-keeled souls are not nearly as numerous as the mad masses? If you want to stay in office, you placate the mob — a mob ginned up by the intoxicating moralizing of the dishonest media.
* * *
This was in the previous age, B.F. — Before Floyd (PBUH). It is now only worse.
The 19th amendment facilitated this — of that, I have no doubt. Women have great difficulty respecting the difference between the public and private spheres, and female suffrage is a recipe for soft totalitarianism. Democracy, though, may be bad enough in and of itself. One leads to the other. The modern dogmas need to be rejected — root and branch. “Conservatives” condemn themselves to failure when trying to accommodate this madness. It all must go.
On the bright side, perhaps all of this recent craziness is a prayer answered. I believe, Professor, that you have no expectation in a mass awakening (I refuse to call this idiocy “woke” — however bastardized a word), but perhaps these relatively inconvenient matters (compared to mass killings and incarcerations in gulags) are a blessing. Some of the sanest populations in the world right now are ones that emerged from Communist tyranny. They suffered greatly to gain their wisdom. This idiocy has destroyed many lives, but it’s still a pleasant promenade compared to what the real Bolsheviks did. If this is enough to stir the soul of enough people, we’ll look back with gratitude to this year. Perhaps, the Fabians’ losing control of their deformation will ensure the Left’s defeat. Of course, this could just be the appetizer of a horrendous feast of souls, but I try to look for silver linings.
One of the grim jokes in our democracy is that expanding suffrage doesn’t count as manipulating the electorate, whereas restricting suffrage does. The men who instituted the poll tax at least had the decency to admit they were trying to limit voting by poor men, and especially by poor Black men. The men who expanded the franchise always said justice demanded an electorate that just so happened to vote for men like themselves. My fifteen year old daughter joined me for one of my evening walks last week, and we talked about her dawning awareness of politics. I tried to explain that she must cherish but not be mastered by her female compassion. The 19A presents a terrible choice of politics flooded with female compassion or females “unsexed” (to use Lady Macbeth’s term) to engage in politics. In addition to their naturally greater compassion, it seems females are far more devoted to consensus, and therefore far more intolerant of dissent. There are many men who cannot help thinking that everyone who disagrees with them are either stupid or evil, but this intolerance seems to be more widespread among women. Evolutionary psychology explains this as a consequence of their greater dependence on the group and group harmony. It is hell to be ruled by compassionate women who demand consensus and think they are sweet for doing so.
Pingback: An Addendum to “This Revolution” | Reaction Times
“Androcentric, Eurocentric, and heterocentric…” They forgot heliocentric. The Copernican model of the solar system is so obviously sexist, xenophobic, and anti-homocentric. The sun, promoted to centrality, is another example of oppressive “whiteness.”
The real problem is centrism of any sort. Everyone must become an eccentric. Maybe they will start reading the Orthosphere!