The Simon Ehrlich Bet

A long time ago in a far away land, a lowly business professor at a state college showed that a famous person from Stanford was a fraud and a con-man. The famous Simon – Ehrlich Wager Wager is one of those events that holds the attention of both sides of the political elite. Betting against over all human progress has proven to be a suckers bet for roughly 10,000 years. On the other hand, those inclined toward cynicism take pleasure in unmanning charlatans like Ehrlich on philosophical grounds.

Guys like Paul Ehrlich will always be with us, mostly because they are not about being empirically right, but about being morally right. There not appealing to facts and reason, when they stand out demanding the rest of us repent. What they are really doing is appealing to the managerial class, who view themselves as the keepers of public morality, by way of flattery. You see, if you agree with Ehrlich, then you are a good person, because all the good people agree with him.

Steve Sailer linked to this and provided some commentary. While Sailer can be a bit dismal in his analysis, he strikes me as a fairly optimistic guy. Optimists are people who think things will be fine in the long run. They may have doubt about the short run, but they think things tend to work out fort her best. Sailer seems to think that the people in charge will figure it out and make the necessary course corrections. One day, Steve will get to see his beloved California restored to what he recalls as a child.

I don’t know, but I would assume Sailer looks back fondly on the unmasking of Ehrlich as a fraud. It supports his generally optimistic view that things tend to get better in the long run. Therefore, when someone comes out with some gloomy predictions, Sailer tends to be more dismissive that most people. That’s why the Simon-Ehrlich wager still resonates after all these years. For the optimists, it is confirmation. For those in power, it is an excuse to ignore the warnings of their critics.

Maybe human progress is inevitable and the sort of dire prognostications like the ones in that linked post can be safely ignored. Maybe Ehrlich was just a grifter and his failure has no meaning whatsoever. The predictions in that post look quite reasonable. There’s very good reason to think that the American Empire is slowly moving to a denouement that will be no more pleasant than the end of previous empires. if in ten years those things are true, the politics of America will be very rough.

It’s the Money

A topic that never gets the attention it deserves is the role of credit money in the modern technological economy. More important, the role of this new money, built for a technological society, is having on the old economy, where most everyone lives and works. Outside of Silicon Valley, Washington and New York, most people exist in the late-industrial age. Their money, however, is designed for the post-industrial, technological age where information and network positioning is the basis of value.

The current setup with the dollar as the reserve currency pegged to nothing more than the hopes and dreams if the Federal Reserve is a new thing in history. In fact, it is one of the truly new things in the last thousand years. Since the Louvre Accords formalized the currency arrangements we have today, debt of all types has exploded. You see it quite clearly in this article from the Free Press about Detroit’s woes. Right in the mid to late 1980’s, Detroit went from a declining debt path to a skyrocketing debt path.

The article, of course, does not address the role of credit money and instead tries to shift the blame to its favorite bad guys. The truth is, the unfolding debt crisis has very little to do with policy decisions made by Mayors, Governors or even Congress. It is the result of the shift change in the currency arrangements of the world. The old market restraints, based on the bond issuer’s ability to pay, have been changed to a system where restraint is based on the ability of the system to absorb new debt.

Many people recognize the debt problem, but they don’t understand the underlying cause, instead falling on old chestnuts like “Fiat Currency!” Our economic elites think the answer to the debt crisis is more debt. Some of it is narrow self-interest, as debt creation offers profit opportunities. Others are just true believers who get misty eyed whenever someone mentions capitalism. Then, of course, most people struggle to understand a a shadow banking system with its trillions in complex derivatives.

Cities like Detroit certainly suffer from a collapse of human capital, but that’s not the cause of their debt problems. In the old system, where an ability to pay would have been a restraint on debt issuance, the city would have had to cut services long before the debt load became dangerous. In a system that is hungry for debt, there’s no shortage of people willing to take the Detroit paper. This has allowed the global financial system to loot American cities by offering debt these cities can never repay.

The bankruptcies of American cities are just a tremor, one that everyone will ignore, as these can be papered over by new debt from states. The looming pension problem will be a much bigger tremor, as there will be no way to pay the debt owed to baby boomers retiring from the civil service. At some point, probably in the next decade, the great credit expansion will reach some natural limit that no one currently understands and then we get the real crisis. Detroit will look like good times.

The Cult of Modern Liberalism

It is easy to chuckle at stories like this one from Massachusetts. Every day some new outrage emanates from these hotbeds of lunacy. Right now, Massachusetts is the epicenter of the suicide cult we call Progressivism. This is a state that replaced a liberal Republican with a fake indian, who is as dumb as a goldfish. They followed that up by replacing their retiring senator with an aging child weirdo nicknamed Mr. Frosty.

Massachusetts a good state to examine when trying to understand the currents in modern Progressive identity. About 45% of the population is normal. Another 45% is deep in the weeds of the Progressive theology. Massachusetts has the third lowest rate of church attendance in the nation and one of the lowest marriage rates. Unsurprisingly, they have one of the lowest fertility rates. Progressivism is not a fruitful religion.

The secular religion of liberalism is, like all cults, is based on self-loathing. Christianity and Judaism, in contrast, begin with the belief that God loves his creations. At their purest, they are a celebration of life and living. Adherents are attracted to these religions because they provide affirmation of humanity. For Jews, they believe they will one day spend eternity with their god. Christians will go to heaven.

Secular religions work the other way. They are premised on the belief that the adherent is vile and worthless. They join the movement in order to exchange their identity for that of the group. Progressivism offers a sort of cleansing, where the hated self is subsumed into the greater identity of the cause. The American Left has always been about self-abnegation, a weird sort of sacrifice of self to an all encompassing community.

Their fanaticism is due to the lack of a limiting principle. In Christianity, there is no salvation on this earth. You can practice all the rites and rituals, live a moral life, but to do so excessively is to risk the sin of vanity. Put another way, Christianity draw a line at virtue where beyond it offers nothing extra. Progressivism does the opposite. The adherent is always looking to be just a bit more pious.

Also note that the inclusiveness is just a modern implementation of the Puritan sense of communal salvation. That tradition of assuming a community is only as righteous as its worst sinner has transformed into a demand that everyone must included in everything, or else. Diversity is just code for denying that people can have private lives and private affairs. If everyone can’t be in it, then it is immoral.

A world without borders is a world with just one border, a prison wall that keeps everyone inside so they can be supervised. That’s what Progressivism is today. It’s a license for the self-righteous to root around in your life, looking for signs of bad thoughts. The result is the end of all private association and all unsupervised separation. Their vision of society is something closer to a prison, than a utopia.

A World of No Secrets

When it was revealed that the US government was reading everyone’s e-mails and tapping their calls, some not so well informed people recommended Tor as one way to keep the Feds out of your e-mail. Unsurprisingly, it turns out to be totally false. Tor was never a foolproof way to be anonymous on-line and it is entirely possible tor was always a honey pot. According to this Bloomberg story, not only was the network hacked by the Feds, it has some rather big security flaws.

The fact that the funding for the project comes from the Department of Defense should have been a clue, but people want to believe there is a way to outwit the collective might of the tech industry and the imperial government. of course, the rumors leaking from the FBI to the main stream media could be psyops. They can’t crack Tor, so they leak that they have, hoping people will stop using it. If Tor collapses, some other option will take its place, maybe created by the Feds. Such is life in the surveillance state.

The handful of Progressives who care about privacy say the solution is to pass a bunch of privacy laws like the Europeans. The Euros do have a more adversarial relationship with the Tech giants, because of their natural anti-Americanism. In reality, the American Left likes to talk about Europe, as it allows them to carry on like they are citizens of the world, rather than local bumpkins.The idea that the US government will limit himself is laughable, but no American thinks clearly about this stuff.

The Left has always been deranged about this stuff. They will trust the government to police itself, but they assume every corporation is out to get them. This in spite the fact their new ruler is expanding the surveillance state, while giving the store away to the tech giants. Of course, the American Left has never been consistent. Even so, 5,000 years of human history tell us that those with power will exercise it and eventually abuse it. It is why The Founders limited it and diffused it.

The fact is, the state can get away with just about anything, as long as the bulk of the people think they safe, fed and entertained. Further, if the abuse is not direct, as in agents of the state knocking down doors, people tend to rationalize it. The government spying on everyone is read by 90% of people as “the government is spying on them.” Lather on some talk about Muslims trying to blow up the world and most people will view opposition to the surveillance state as subversion.

Nothing happens until the money runs out. The America middle class is willing to sit on its hands doing as they are told as long as they have their Olive Garden and sportsball on the television. When that ends, then we will see things change. When there’s no more money to fund the welfare state, the welfare state ends. When there is no more money to borrow to fund the Imperial Army, the Empire ends. When there’s no more money for the America surveillance services, that will end.

The Next Phase For NYC

Some people are wringing their hands over the prospect of a communist becoming the next mayor of New York City. It is not an unreasonable concern, as the city has gone from an ungovernable mess to a modern metropolis for the rich and powerful. New York has become quietly intolerant since the 1970’s and that intolerance has made the city a better place. The citizens, especially the rich ones, decided enough was enough and elected politicians willing to clean up the crime, urban blight and dysfunctional public sector.

It was not entirely by design. Rudy Giuliani won because he had a rep as a crime fighter and he had the right accent. He cleaned up the tourist areas and public parks. He also reformed the police department. Bloomberg won promising to leave things in place and he convinced liberal New Yorkers that it was OK to be tough on crime. He also showed how they could avert their gaze from the realities of gentrification, which is a fancy word fro chasing off the non-whites by jacking up rents.

Now it appears the radicals have figured out how to get back in power. Civilization is about not accepting a wide range of human behavior. Laws against violence, rape, sex acts and so forth are what allows civilization to flower. To be a liberal means not understanding this basic truth of the human condition, which seems to be the case with the next mayor. That probably means he will attempt to roll back that which has worked and replace it with polices that have failed everywhere they have been tried.

New York could go one of two ways. Right now it is following down the path of San Francisco. Economics and subtle racism have made San Fran a NAM free zone. The city is 5% black and 15% Hispanic. The rest is Asian and White. New York is getting less black and more white. Part of it is due to the economy of the city. Part of it is due to gentrification. Part is due to those police tactics to chase NAM males out of the city if they were inclined to dress like extras from a Jay-Z video.

How much of each is responsible for the transformation of the city is unknown, but the smart bet is the latter is a declining factor. That may be why the super-rich who run the city are not all that worried about having a communist mayor. The danger is gone so they can go back to indulging their weird political fantasies. It is reminiscent of the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Once the tough guy does his job, he can be replaced by the soft guy who does not startle the ladies.

There’s also the fact that turning back the clock and restoring 1970’s era New York is not possible, given real estate prices. Radicals were able to turn the city into a sewer by unleashing non-white criminals onto the working class neighborhoods. The working class is gone and so are the criminals that displaced them. Today, the Bronx is full of hipsters and homosexuals paying outlandish rents. There’s no way to unleash non-white criminals on hipsterville, so the city is safe from that tactic.

Then there is the fact that New York is the hub of the global financial system. In the 60’s and 70’s, global finance occupied a much smaller part of western life, so it occupied a smaller part of the city. Today, the global financial elite consume most of the economic space and have enormous inflection over New York City. If the communist mayor becomes too much of a problem, the new robber barons will simply back his opponent and that will be the end of the communist mayor.

Still, it does suggest something about whites people, at least in this age. or perhaps it is something about whites in a democratic system. Two tough on crime and corruption mayors changed New York in ways no thought were possible. That should be the lesson of the last twenty years. instead, voters and the political operators feel compelled to return to ideas that were absolute failures. It’s like white people have some sort of suicide wish that causes them to vote for what is sure to fail.

The Above Ground Underground

The first time I heard of modern supper clubs was from John Derbyshire. I don’t recall the specifics, just that he said he was a member of one in New York City. I want to say it was in one of his podcasts, but I don’t recall. That’s not important. I was surprised to learn such things were still going on. It seemed like a thing Victorians would do or perhaps rich people in the roaring twenties. When I think of supper clubs, I think of something clandestine and subversive, the sorts of things popular with heretics.

I decided to see if any of these things existed in my part of the world and sure enough, they were around and not very secret about it. One of my business acquaintances is in one that meets once a month. They have invited speakers who give a short talk and then socialize with the club members. In the case of my acquaintance, the theme of the club is civic activism. They help get rich people involved in various causes to improve the city or get some law changes they think needs changing.

Anyway, I saw this and was reminded of Derb’s clandestine supper club. It turns out they are not legal and perhaps even subversive, in a  strange modern way. Because everything in modern life is regulated, especially in a place like New York, not getting permission to have dinner with friends is something close to an act of treason. I suppose the next time we hear from John Derbyshire will be in the police blotter. It sounds absurd, but this is New York City. They want to regulate the amount of soda you can drink.

All joking aside, it is one of those little things, a blade of grass stabbing through the asphalt, that encourages me a bit. Tocqueville found American’s obsession with what he called associations to be an important part of what made American liberty work:

The political associations that exist in the United States are only a single feature in the midst of the immense assemblage of associations in that country. Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.

The fact that even in New York City, citizens are willing to commit little acts of subversion in league with others, often strangers, says the flame of liberty has not been extinguished entirely. Granular control of the lives of the citizenry has a cost, as people just won’t cooperate. The current arrangements cannot last and that means they will not last. The question is what comes next. If these little dinner clubs are any indication, maybe what comes next will not be so bad, perhaps even better than what we see now.

Why Obama Lost To Putin

One of the things you learn when you go from working class to middle class is that the men get softer the further you go up the class ladder. By softer I mean less inclined to throw a punch. At the lower end of the scale, you better be able to back up your words with your fists or a knife or a gun. Otherwise, you better know how to keep your mouth shut and steer clear of trouble.

In elite society, alpha males are quick with the witty jibe and enforce their dominance with clever repartee. Careful politicking, networking and favor trading is how one advances in the upper classes. Words, not deeds, are the currency of the rich. In the lower classes, too much talking can get you killed. In the upper classes, being glib is like being tough, it is the thing expected of people of high status.

I thought about that as Obama stumbled and bumbled is way back from the brink of war yesterday. He and his advisers are from the same world. Upper middle and upper class childhoods. Prep schools then elite colleges. After college it was law school, government service and perhaps stints at elite Wall Street firms to take care of the finances. Then eventually service in the upper reaches of government or perhaps an NGO.

In the hermetically sealed world of American politics, this is not big thing. Everyone is playing by the same rules of the pseudo-meritocracy. Obama played the game better than most and was able to parlay his race into the top job. He has always dealt with people who have have the same mental models as he has, so he is unable to comprehend that there are people working from different mental frameworks.

In foreign policy, things are a bit different. In the Syria crisis, one of the major players is Vladimir Putin. He has probably killed people as a member of the KGB. He has certainly ordered people killed as he has gone up the food chain. He’s not Ivan the Terrible, but he is a genuine bad ass who made it to the top of the heap in a world where mistakes get you killed or let you kill your rival. He’s also dealt with the fashionable careerists who not dominate the elites of western countries.

You may think I’m overdoing it with Putin, but consider another major player. That would be Assad of Syria. He could easily have negotiated a deal to leave Syria and settle in Europe. Hell, he could do a deal with Obama and moved to New York City. Instead, he stays in Syria, fighting the rebels. According to various reports, 100,000 civilians have been killed since this thing started. It takes a genuine badass to be in charge of a tribe willing to kill anyone in their way. Assad may have got to his place through nepotism, but he remains in power by killing anyone who challenges him.

You can go through the entire roster of players in this story, Jews, Arabs and Persians, and find a whole bunch of seriously bad dudes. The thing about bad dudes, whether they are Arab dictators or the president of the local Hell’s Angels chapter, is they have no illusions about the human condition. They also know their limits. Sonny at the biker bar knows he is not talking you out of your interests. The House of Saud knows the only way to stay in power is to use it. Talking about it does nothing.

That’s why Obama & Co were outwitted by Putin and Assad. These are men fully equipped to deal with the realities of that part of the world. They have no illusions about what can be done. Obama and his people walk around thinking that a clever speech or well crafted argument is going to get everyone to do what they say. That’s how it has always worked for them. It is how they were trained. The result is they lost this round to Russia and the empire is showing it weakness.

National Review

I commented on this post at National Review and the commnet was quickly removed by their moderators. I made the point that pretentious people like Michael Potemra live in a city where it is official policy to hassle brown people on the streets. The intent of stop and frisk is to let the black know he is not welcome. Since the court struck down Bloomberg’s stop and frisk rules, the city’s chattering classes have been wringing their hands about New York becoming Detroit. Now word and deed are one as the official policy of driving out the blacks is matched by the public rhetoric.

Despite this, we still hear the lectures from the smugly self-righteous over race. The same people demanding their cops stop every black guy wandering into Manhattan, will scream about Paula Deen and George Zimmerman. None of this is shocking as most of the people doing this are Progressives and they need bogeymen men to exist. The result is a stunning lack of self-awareness. Liberals, almost always, reserve their harshest venom for the crimes they routinely commit. It’s the sort of thing that goes on in a cult.

Now, I used to be a regular in the National Review comment section. I stopped when Rich Lowry hired someone to moderate the site. Instantly 90% of the commenters disappeared and Lowry had to spend a month begging people to return. I gave it another shot, but quit again when the same nonsense started anew. The only reason to read the site nowadays is to read the comments. There at least you see that there are still people with an awareness of what’s happening in the country. It’s somewhat encouraging, frankly.

Lowry and the editorial staff at National Review are strivers, not all that interested in raising uncomfortable observations. They are the definition of careerist. The only guy at National Review worth reading is Kevin Williamson and I strongly suspect he is a complete phony. Otherwise National Review is, at best, a souvenir program for the museum of late-20th century conservatism. At worst is is a platform for hollow men like Lowry to curry favor with the ruling class.

If National Review were actually trying to oppose the left, as they like to claim in their funding drives, they would love the issue of race. Instead, they are doing everything they can to insulate the Left from the growing number of whites wondering if they should not embrace identity politics for their own sake. It’s not just National Review. Dan McCarthy at The American Conservative is following the same path. Buckley conservatism is pretty much just pear clutching and purges now. It has nothing else to offer.

The reason behind these moves is the claim that it is bad for business. They say the donors don’t like it, but they fail to mention that many of their donors also support Progressive publications. Of course, all of these writers dream of landing a TV gig at a Progressive cable channel, so they make sure to never write anything that will truly vex Lefty. That means the Left lectures the Right on race and the Right forever apologizes for things it never did or said, because in the end, they are all at the same trough.

The whole point of being in the opposition is to oppose the prevailing orthodoxy. To do that you have to let a thousand flowers bloom. That means putting up with some weirdos and cranks, but it also means getting interesting perspective from guys like Unz, Sailer, Derbyshire and so forth. They have their own quirks and get things wrong, but they get a lot right too. When you’re the underdog, you need to be creative and take risks.

Instead, the dying husks of American conservatism are purging themselves of non-conformists and begging the majority to allow them to surrender. National Review has simply become the primary outlet of the collaborationist wing of the GOP. In fact, it was always just the outer limit of what was allowable within the prevailing Progressive orthodoxy. Buckley was a right-wing Progressive with expensive tastes. The thing is, people are starting to notice that it was always part of the long con.

Obama X

In the Reagan years, liberals had a standard response to the fact Reagan was wildly popular. They said he was personally popular, but his policies were not popular. It was sort of true, in that some of his polices were unpopular, but his winning personality and the booming economy more than made up for it. Similarly, conservatives argued that the Clinton polices were not popular, but the affable Clinton was well liked. They had some evidence, but the Clinton polices were not all that different from the Bush polices.

The argument really fell apart in the Bush years. Initially, most white voters respected him as a decent guy. He was not charismatic, but efforts to demonize him never got very far because he was seen as decent and honestly, if not terribly bright. He won two elections largely because the public viewed him as the least bad option. Put another way, his polices were not all that popular and his personality was not ideal, but he was less offensive to middle-class white people than Gore or Kerry.

In contrast, we may actually be seeing an example of a president riding personal popularity in the face of his unpopular polices. There’s little doubt he won in 2008 because of the magic negro stuff. He was the living validation of everything the Baby Boomers believed about race and culture. Huge increases in the vote from black women, liberal whites and upper-middle class whites carried him to victory, even though his platform was ill-defined and not particularly interesting. The voters just wanted to like him.

The 2010 election and the continuing hatred of his signature achievement underscores this fact. The phenomenon is in full bloom with Syria. Obama is in the mid-to-low-40’s according to Gallup, yet his Syria policy has 27% support. Part of it can be attributed to the poor handling of the issue. That said, no amount of salesmanship is going to make another war popular. The best he could have done is match his own approval rate by rallying his party, but even they can’t get on-board with a war with Syria.

At the end of the Bush years, we saw what happened when the majority party used up all of its good will with the public. The 2006 election wiped out the GOP. We saw what happened when the president used up all of his good will. Bush fell into the low-30’s at one point. Obama is at 42% right now and this fiasco is not helping him. It will be interesting to see if his coalition starts to unwind as we saw with Bush. The Obama coalition may very well be more fragile, even temporary, but that may not be clear until the next election.

This piece from the NYTimes lays it out well. Personal validation has a short shelf life in politics. Eventually the practical overtakes it in importance. A big chunk of the Obama coalition is on board solely because it feels good. Of course, blacks support him on racial grounds, but they expect something in return. If loving Obama no longer feels good for liberal whites and blacks feel like they are getting shorted, Obama and the Democrats will have a very bad election in 2014. His personality may not be enough.

Of course, the one thing black politicians have often used when in trouble is the race card. Kurt Schmoke was the first Obama. He was a clean and articulate guy who came out of elite colleges and promised to be a new type of black politician. That is, black on the inside and white liberal on the inside. When that formula stopped working, he started dressing like Nelson Mandela and talking like Malcolm X. Perhaps Obama will find some way to play the race card before the 2014 election. Maybe he’s going to be Obama X.

When Experiments Against Reality Go Wrong

I’m fond of using the word “reality” in discussion with members of the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Part of it is that it makes them crazy. They love to end debate by uttering catch phrases like “as a member of the reality based community…” that are finished with a recitation from the catechism intended to end the discussion. In other words, it is just another way they declare themselves our moral superiors, giving them thr ight to rule facts out of bounds when they contradict tenets of the one true faith.

Over at Marginal Revolution an hysterical homosexual took me to task for using the term in a post about religion and fertility rates. I’m assuming he is a homosexual due to the overwrought use of the word “intolerant” when discussing religion. That’s one of those things you see with gays in the academy. They use the word intolerant a lot. It is, as they say, a dog whistle. Pointing out observable facts sent him racing to the fainting couch.

I thought about that when reading this story about the rape scandal at Vanderbilt. From news accounts, this appears to be real rape or “rape-rape” as Hoopie Goldberg calls it.  A young woman was violated by a group of football players while she was unconscious. The documented actions of the accused indicate a consciousness of guilt and an attempt o hide the facts from authorities. On the surface, it looks like a real crime was committed.

Whether or not they are legally guilty of rape will be left up to whatever peculiarities of Tennessee law that apply. Sex crimes are funny, as the statutes reflect regional sensibilities. Age of consent is a good example. In some states, a woman getting passed out drunk and then crying foul stands no chance, because the law requires the court to evaluate the credibility of the people in order to determine consent.

Anyway. what these men did to this woman should be punished with a long stretch in prison, assuming the facts back the narrative in the press. If it was one drunk guy and a drunk girl, then that’s a different story. These players seem to have been sober, knew she was beyond drunk and then acted in a way after the incident to suggest the presence of a guilty mind. That’s not kids making a mistake. It’s criminals committing real crimes.

They are not, however, 100% responsible for the events. If a man jumps into a lion’s den wearing a meat suit, we blame him, not the lion. Similarly, if a woman goes out partying with a man and gets so drunk she is unconscious, she bears some responsibility. Now, men are not animals so they don’t get a pass like with the lion, but they are not immune from nature. This is something people knew up until last week.

Young men since the dawn of time have been willing to risk everything for sex. It is as much a part of our biology as left handedness or stereoscopic vision. It is why women have been taught to be weary of young men since the dawn of time. It’s why there were prohibitions against young people hanging around one another unsupervised. it was to protect the men from themselves and the women from the men.

That held until the magical thinking of feminism came along with all of its nature denying beliefs. If we arrange things the right way, they argue, women can be men, just without dicks. Men can be pleasant lesbians with dicks. Otherwise, sex as a biological characteristic can be willed away. Boys can be raised as girls and girls as boysLike everything else with Cultural Marxism, sex becomes this gray, formless nothingness encompassed by the hollow word “gender” that means everything and nothing.

Reality does not go away when you stop believing in it. By nature, boys want to have sex with girls. They will go to great lengths to do it. Getting a girl drunk so she will give in to a man’s advances dates back to the first discovery of alcohol. Teaching women that this does not exist is like teaching them that gravity is a social construct. It is not just madness, it borders on the criminal. This young woman could easily have avoided this terrible thing by following the wisdom of a thousand generations of women before her.

Again, this does not absolve these young men, but a sensible society would find some way to mention the reckless stupidity of this woman. Everyone is far too afraid as the witch doctors and medicine women of feminism will never permit it. Instead the male student body of Vanderbilt will be subjected to lectures about denying their biology and the women will be told they are failing as women if they observe a bit of restraint when dealing with the opposite sex. It is senseless madness, but that’s where we are in America.