09 December 2016

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election?

Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
  1. Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.
  2. Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered to market themselves to this segment. Everyone seemed to be either puffing up themselves, or pretending to stick up for some minority segment on their behalf and for their own good.
  3. Backlash against the Social Justice Warriors (SJW). This was just a knee-jerk backlash against the elitism of college educated Stepford Students, who are educated in Sangoma sciences, and yet are convinced that they are qualified by virtue of that fact to make decisions that affect the lives of ordinary people.

Why am I happy that Donald Trump won?

I am one of those people who are happy that Donald Trump won. Or rather, I am happy that Hillary Clinton lost. Given the characteristics above, I am horrified by both candidates, but I do think Clinton is the worse candidate of the two. I am happy that Joe Sixpack is sticking up for himself, but mostly, I am overjoyed because Trump's victory represents a backlash against the politically correct SJW culture.

Why did Trump win?

Presumably, an election should revolve around policies and not around the candidates or the adequacy of their respective cheerleaders. Wikipedia has a great summary of the policies of both candidates. When one starts there, as I have, a few things become clear:
  • Trump didn't have any real policies. He had a few choice controversial statements, but didn't have any real policies in place. He was open to suggestions in a Populist manner - something he repeated in his acceptance speech.
  • Hillary had an answer and a final solution for everything. The implication is that Hillary is a package deal.  You either had to trust her and accept her entire package, or you were somehow incapable of making choices for yourself and you were worthy of being treated like a leper.
The problem is that Hillary's campaign relied on trust. Americans did not trust her, given the Wikileaks revelations, her ties to bankers, the foreign money in her pockets and her blatant lies.

It turns out it is a naive assumption to presume that policies have any bearing on an election. These policies are just empty campaign promises, so it's evidently about the slogans.

Trump's catch phrase, like Obama's catch phrase before him, was short and sweet and simple and it is something people believe in. Everyone wanted change when they voted for Obama, but they did not see that change materialise. Now, everyone wants to make America great again.

What was Hillary's slogan again? I am playing the woman card, just deal me in.

Did Trump really win or did Clinton lose?

Trump's victory has been labelled a Whitelash (White backlash), but that labelling in itself is part of the Progressive strategy. I think it was more of a backlash against this Progressive strategy of labelling everyone and everything, thereby placing them in neat, plausible and bent out of shape boxes.

Hillary labelled everyone, including herself (Progressive). The comments from Trump fans I saw were especially critical of this divisive strategy.


What is the Progressive Strategy?

"Democratic man, dreaming eternally of Utopias, is ever a prey to shibboleths" ~ H. L. Mencken.

A shibboleth is a stylistic variation in words or customs used to differentiate between in-groups and out-groups. The Progressive strategy is to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups, and then to cast an indisputable value judgement on the out-group. In short, the Progressive strategy is to create a division between us and them.

Of Progressive Basket Cases

The in-group self-identifies as Progressive. Omnipotent and politically correct. There are only two fruit in the Progressive basket, freshly plucked from the garden in paradise: Sanctimony and unaccountability.

"The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things — war and hunger and date rape — liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors— psychology, sociology, women's studies— to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers" ~ P.J. O'Rourke

How do you get initiated into the in-group? You can achieve piety by accepting fatalism in the product of society sense. Next, you can become canonised when you denounce bad things like income inequality or just inequality in general. Finally, you may receive enlightenment when you cast judgement on those lesser beings who belong to the out-group.

How can you come to accept fatalism? Firstly, by making excuses for yourself, then by making excuses for others. You, yourself? A product of privilege. The invisible hand of fate dropped you in the lap of luxury and now stirs the pot with generous helpings of Middle-Class Guilt.

The Deplorable Fruit Basket of Deplorables (did I mention deplorable?)

They, themselves?  Those others over there? The inevitable outcome of not having had the same privileged background. We must save them. If we're all products of society, then Trump voters must be a result of being misinformed by post-truth news on Facebook. Those poor Trump voters just don't now any better, but instead of engaging with the lepers to examine the sinners, we jump straight to diagnosis. Truly, they are the inevitable outcome of being misinformed. We can fix them by doctoring the Facebook news feed algorithm to get rid of fake news until they recognise us as their Messiahs.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters are more likely to be informed by South Park and 4Chan than by Big Media. Social media is just a trolling playground - nobody takes news seriously in this post-truth age, and nobody should. The REAL news, after all, got all the polls wrong. 

It seems that these Alt-Right Deplorables just wanted to have their voices heard. Paradoxically, they just wanted a safe space to protect them from those safe space missionaries.

Denounce! Repent! The end is nigh!

How do the Progressives denounce bad things? They own the media. Remember, they themselves are mere products of Manufactured Consent thanks to Big Media. They have internalised this Big Media message. They dwell barren, in self-imposed echo chambers on social media resulting from the sacraments of unfriending, un-following and banishing those with dissenting views.

Speaking of banishment, nothing drives home a good banishing like smear campaigns against out-groups. The Big Liberal Media kept repeating their deplorable candidate's name in conjunction with one or more of the deplorables. The missionaries opportunistically handed remaining members of the outgroup a Basket of Deplorables whenever they could by checking their privilege and imposing the self-flaggelation of forcing them to check their own privilege. You don't want to check or even admit your privilege? Must be something wrong with you. You refuse to accept salvation. You refuse to repent. You deserve to burn in hell, you brought it upon yourself.

Deplorables upon Deplorables

The out-group consists of the Basket of Deplorables: Sexist, racist, fascist, homophobic and a few other bad apples I may have missed. Anything that's not Progressive enough. How do you get initiated into the out-group? You trigger someone. Anyone. Over anything. 

Somehow this backfired. These ridiculous standards inadvertently established an extremely low bar for any potential opposition candidate. Certainly, Clinton had a great package deal, but due to this Social Justice Warrior activism, everyone lived in fear. In the Progressive mindset, the worst thing that could happen to a person is to be labelled as one of the deplorables. This means getting banished from the inner sanctum's delicious Kool-Aid.

If the shoe fits, it won't bother you. If it doesn't fit, it would bother you, but then you're already shunned and you're already lumped with the rest of the deplorables. Crying wolf happened so often that it lost its shock value. This backfired so spectacularly that #basketofdeplorables was trending on Twitter in an ironically re-appropriated way. Instead of an effective shaming symbol, it became a badge of honour.

After this weapon of mass media hysteria didn't fend off the infection, Trump was a superbug. He could just wing it willy-nilly, hapless, incompetent, blundering and barely intelligible, but at least he appeared tolerant by comparison.



18 October 2016

The Orange Gaze: Science must fall due to discriminating gravity

By now, every Robert and his mother's brother have seen the Science Must Fall video. Before anyone hurls abuse at the unfortunate souls who expressed these views, it should be noted that these views are not the result of uneducated minds or the legacy of Apartheid which left the majority of our population with an inferior school system.




The bitter irony is that these views originated within the academic ivory towers too, and they are very much Eurocentric. Much in line with the trend of Pomo departments thus far, they've had to employ some cultural misappropriation of perfectly clearly defined jargon from other fields which enjoy a higher pedestal than their own soap boxes.

A Safe Space is one of these terms. A Safe Space is invoked here, not for providing comforting surroundings for a legitimate sufferer of trauma to receive help, but in order to build a wall for an echo chamber. Somehow, this cargo cult science flew the nest and now thinks it can defy the laws of gravity.

The more recent Ivory Tower origins of Science Must Fall and Decolonization


To any interested in the TL;DR version, I suggest Explaining Postmodernism. Anyone else might be interested in the Sokal Affair and its related Science Wars. This debate has been more or less settled, I am told, and fortunately intellectual rigour has prevailed for the most part, even in the departments which had spawned this fashionable nonsense.



Still, there are many more versed in that one of the Two Cultures who would jump to the defence of the Science Must Fall cheerleaders, and this has been the case. I find it endlessly amusing. To their credit, the Science Must Fall ladies narrowed down and stood by views which are virtually indistinguishable from that of their bare naked monarchs whom I shall decline to gender here. They put the cat among the pigeons, and now their defenders are trying to herd cats in trying to contextualise it or plainly just by putting words in the mouths of these brave souls.

If it smells like dog shit, don't start a philosophical debate. Just don't step in it.


In science, when a researcher has been exposed as a fraud, he would enjoy an abrupt end to his career. This has been the case with Andrew Wakefield, who started the MRR vaccine controversy. Sadly, while his scientific career is over, there's no shortage of suckers who are quick to part with their money. Similarly, I am not aware of a single university tenure that was lost as a result of quit frankly peddling woo, and this woo continues to woe many. But science has its issues too, I hear you say?

Science is not perfect so these other imperfect things are just as important


It is true that science isn't perfect, but it is not true that not being subjective is one of these imperfections. Nor is it true that science is colonialism, or that Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity in the same way that Christopher Columbus discovered America. There is a relativity of wrong, and scientific theories are not wrong inasmuch as they are incomplete.



The history of gravitational theory is coincidentally a perfect example to illustrate the myriad of contributors, across space, time, race, ethnicity, - and dare I say it, class - who were crucial to Newton's discovery.

The Orange Gaze


There needs to be a term for these people who suffer from middle class guilt and who try to show solidarity with those they so firmly want to entrench in the downtrodden, disenfranchised paradigm from which only they can save them by creating awareness and making demands. Libtard or Lefty are already loaded terms, and this is not necessarily combined with the Radical Chic. It tends to have an overdose of commodification of activism, though.

Without realising or even bothering to try and consider how much collateral damage there may be within this class, or the long term effects on everyone or anyone else, they tend to just beat their own drum in blissful myopia.

A great example of this kind of person is Rachel Dolezal. In tribute to her glorious spray-tan, I've decided that we shall call this phenomenon the Orange Gaze. I've erred in the Pomo ways by defining this term too lucidly already, so suffice to say I'm always up for playing the pomo drinking game.

Tales of epistemology and loathing from the Ego Chamber


There are certainly fascinating epistemology questions in science. David Hume asked a few of those, and left them unanswered. The Demarcation Problem is another one that comes to mind.

Despite major unanswered epistemological problems, science went ahead and cured plenty of third world famine, third world hunger and put first world men on the moon. This while the Pomos are still puzzled as to what their genitalia denote.



The reason why we may know in science is because science has a more solid methodology. It may have its issues too, and it is only now becoming aware of at least one of its methodological ones in statistical significance. Yet in trying to solve these riddles, one does not need to decolonize anything, unless that means getting rid of the assholes who suffer from sophism. One merely needs to do science and allow one's ideas outside of the Ego Chamber, where they may be scrutinised and even ridiculed according to their merit.

There are enough engrossing problems in science and the philosophy of science without the need to invent more. We'll certainly get further in solving them without burning our universities.

10 May 2016

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.


Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.


A similar campaign was started by someone for Darryn August. It also managed to raise more than R 100 000 and is currently just shy of R 200 000. Leaving the problematic notion of trying to quantify a qualia in the manner of how much charity is charity and beyond which charity is obscene behind for a second and just taking things as they are presented:


The notion that this is only minority white capital showing black capital who is boss is entirely falsified (read: It is revealed for the spurious, contrived notion that it is, directly from the shallow depths that it had to stoop to). Sorry, I didn't do a pencil test on Darryn August so I cant tell you if his skin colour merits charity, nor how much is really enough and beyond which it would just be obscene to extend further goodwill to someone. But feel free to decide for yourself and don't forget to judge someone else's charity harshly if it causes cognitive dissonance and doesn't fit within the neat, convenient, lazy, regurgitated ideological blinkers.


By the way, instead of pontificating about how much the goodwill of other people puts you to shame, perhaps it is more fruitful to find a cause that you feel is worthy and donate to that. Per definition, there are very few people who are truly privileged like a Rhodes Scholar would be anywhere in the world. One person's charity does not pacify yours. You should be ashamed because for an activist you didn't do much in any active sense, but it's not too late. You too can do some good for a change. It would be a radical change, but it is worthwhile. Whataboutery on the other hand is a lose-lose scenario.


Contrary to what is claimed, anyone can in fact start a crowdfunding campaign. It is true. Many have, but the reason why this particular White Tip campaign was so successful is largely because it gave people like me an opportunity to tell people like the Rhodes Must Fall rascists and remedial Radical Chic journalists that they are full of manure.

Creative Commons License