Thursday, November 09, 2017


That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." 
There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H.G.Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all--the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

A while ago I got a chance to read Stephen Hicks's, Explaining Postmodernism, after Jordan Peterson tweeted out its praise. I thought it was good and for those seeking a brief introduction to the subject it's definitely worth a read.  For those who are interested, here is a review that I think is quite good.
I'm not really interested in providing a critique of the book but am more interested it's subject matter and in the implications it has on the wider culture.

At it's most basic, Postmodernism rejects the notion of an objective truth and insists on the notion that truth is socially "constructed". Right from the outset we can see that Postmodernism is opposed to Rightism, whose metaphysical fundamental premise is the existence of an objective truth. Furthermore, the way that Postmodernism sees the "truth" is as relative view point, used to assert and maintain power by the Right. Postmodernists may deny the reality of the truth but implicitly they affirm the reality of power, and their aim is to assert it on their terms.

I don't think that many Rightists fully grasp the malignancy of this concept, especially when debating the Left within the current cultural context. Whenever the Left presents some outlandish idea, there is no doubt some Rightist who sets about trying to prove them wrong, but what the Rightist fails to understand is the game he is playing and the game they are playing are totally different. Proof is irrelevant when there is no truth. Arguing against the Left using empirical facts and reason is pointless when your opponent denies the legitimacy of these things.  Which brings us to the subject of free speech.

Our current notions of free speech, based as they are on the classical liberal tradition, are premised primarily on the notion that there IS an objective truth.  They are also premised on the notions that people, especially those in power, may have erroneous ideas, and that reality calibration is only possible through the free exchange of ideas sifted through the mechanism of honest rationality, considered from a variety of viewpoints. The other implicit assumption going on here is the power is expected to yield to the truth when shown to be wrong. In other words, the classical liberal advocacy of freedom of speech was premised on several prior assumptions with regard to ontology, reason, and the rights of power and truth. The other premise is that your opponent was meant to argue in good faith. How do you argue with a person who denies these fundamental premises? More importantly, what's the point when Postmodernism asserts that is no such thing a "right opinion" or argument in the first place.

Academic freedom is likewise premised on the notion that academics should be free to pursue their studies in whatever direction they wish in the search for truth. However this concept gets turned around on its head when it comes to Postmodernism with its assertion that there is no truth.  Postmodernism effectively undermines the whole Western academic apparatus. As Chesterton said it is the thought that destroys all thinking.

Our reflexive and unthinking advocacy of freedom of speech and academic freedom has given a milieu for Postmodernism to thrive. It has advocated the very undermining of the institutions whose protection it seeks whenever it is challenged. Ultimately postmodernism about power, particularly its own, and it spreads it in an environment that that it has sworn to to destroy. I'm normally loathe to put any restrictions on the freedom of speech or academic inquiry but when I comes to Postmodernism I quite happy to provide an enthusiastic exception. The old Church fathers would have recognised it for what it was, a poisonous heresy and would have stamped it out.

I'm all for doing the same.


Thoughts On Power said...

Hm. Is there a reason why one could not take the tools of Postmodernism and apply it to itself? It's about arguments for and against power both implicit and explicit. Argument doesn't exist in Postmodernism except as something that legitimates some power structure, including its own.

Postmodernism is an ideology that is useful to group people of political dispositions, such as what you call Leftists, into a team. The issue is less the ideology than the fact its a proxy for affiliation and action.

The same tools of PM can be used against itself if enough members of the Right choose to use it.

I see it as good training to know it and turn the critique on itself. It is after all an attack. So defend or attack in turn, like with war.

The genteel world you speak of with classical liberalism was meant for the British and some other Europeans. It wasn't something for the world's peoples, not even the French.

Classical liberalism is fine for the British Gentleman's Club but not for the rough-and-tumble world of political cultural attacks. In the real world you have to win.

Sunnybutt said...

Let's stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that you were named Constitutional Dictator, able to rewrite our laws at will.

How would you stomp out the idea of Postmodernism?

What I'm asking, I suppose, is "what is to be done about this, short of violent revolution?"

Jason said...

Sunnybutt makes a good point, doctor. I don't see how one can restrict speech without it being unjust, not to mention subject to serious abuse. Although, to allude to the sort of thing I've said before here, I guess we're going to be able to watch theory entering into practice on this problem. Notably with the Visegrad 4, which have the spiritual and moral capital to - a big if - legitimately limit some forms of speech. Actually, maybe Slovakia and Poland would be the best bets where, unlike secular Hungary and Czechia with very pagan populations (yeah I know Orban is your homeboy, but I think he's fighting a rearguard action in his country), there still exist significant Christian majorities or at least minorities that might mostly in a cultural sense responsibly monitor what we Americans call the First Amendment.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Thoughts of Power

Postmodernism is an ideology that is useful to group people of political dispositions, such as what you call Leftists, into a team. The issue is less the ideology than the fact its a proxy for affiliation and action.

Yes, that is correct. Hicks posts up an interesting graphic where he shows how Leftism morphs into something else when its theories are proven wrong with Leftism ultimately morphing into a variant with dispenses with the Truth altogether. At its core it demonstrates that the ideology places power and its achievement above all else.

The same tools of PM can be used against itself if enough members of the Right choose to use it.

No, to use their tools is to be co-opted into their mindset. I'm all for Power which respects truth.

Classical liberalism is fine for the British Gentleman's Club

To a certain degree this correct and implicitly recognises that for liberalism to thrive it needs to do so in an environment where priori assumptions with regard to tolerance, truth, fair play and reason are assumed to exist. I wouldn't be so hard on the French, culturally it's a country divided in two.

In many ways Liberalism presents several problems which have an analogy in modern warfare. Consider the Western pracitice of not deliberately targeting hospitals, ambulances schools, water supplies, etc. during war. If both combatants agree to the terms of engagement it does limit some of the horrors of war, but on the other hand, if one party ditches the rules and starts transporting troops using ambulances and hides in hospitals and churches, how to respond? To stick with the rules places one of the parties at a strategic disadvantage. The only legitimate response I see to this is to go after the bastards as hard as you can and punish them for war crimes. The Post modernists are like those who ditch the conventions of war, yet whenever they start losing ground start appealing to them.


1) Revoke all the academic qualifications of any professor teaching the subject.
2) Deprive the professors of any university derived income including retirement funds
3) Revoke funding of universities teaching the subject.
4) Fire the chancellors of the universities which allow these subjects to be taught.
5) Withdraw the right of the offending university to award academic qualifications in all disciplines.
6) Deny graduates from these universities who have taken post modernism courses access to the teaching,media or government employment.
7) Withdraw any tax exemptions a university may have if it teaches the subject.


I don't see how one can restrict speech without it being unjust

Unjust to who or what?

Justice presupposes a moral order, something the PoMo's deny. How can you be unjust to someone who denies the existence of justice?

In my opinion, the only people fit to be the guardians of free speech are those who are committed to the concept of the truth, warts and all. And we've gotta be really careful here, I'd be vetting my Christians quite severely when it comes to this matter. A lot of the Trads, like the liberals have PoMo tendencies. The whole Galileo saga was a case in point.

BTW, very astute observations about Hungary and Czech republic. I agree.

Anonymous said...

I apologize because this comment is unrelated to your posting, but I have to ask for my own sake, where did you meet your wife? You've written before about taking your time to find a truly good spouse. How did you finally meet her?

I'm a 21-year-old female college student. I put effort into looking nice, staying in shape, dressing well. Never had a boyfriend, absolutely zero sexual partners. Like you, I'm searching for a life partner. Is it supposed to feel impossible?

Anonymous said...

Objective truth has to survive relativity. At different velocities, the time is different, the colours of objects are different, the size and shapes of objects are different, etc. Two people can each reach completely different truths observing the same phenomena. Everyone's perception is in some way 'true'. The challenge is in working out how the differences in 'velocity' account for the different facts. But then how do you decide? Is the star white, red or blue? Are you stationary relative to the star, moving towards or away? What fraction of c are you moving at? Has it been 10 years or 50? Is there a dead still point in the middle of the universe from which point all measurements should be compared? The chair is solid, zoom in and it is barely there, immense voids between its particles. The post-modernist isn't wrong, just less right. They say they are more right, at their 'velocity' they aren't wrong. The point is that this has to be reconciled with the truth. To the savage, evil spirits in the air make people sick, he is not wrong. To the CDC, air-borne pathogens spread disease, they're not wrong. The feminist thinks 'The Man' is keeping her down, she's not wrong either. The MGTOW thinks all women are harpies, he's not wrong. Post modernism is an acknowledgement of objective truth, what a paradox! Not really, there is always a higher order that is more true. Moral order exists, justice is objective and evil lurks in the heart of men. But you can't abolish post-modernism you have to intergrate it.

Jason said...

That's a reasonable wrapping of my knuckles, doctor. I suppose one shouldn't conflate the practical dangers of attempting to reduce or eliminate post-modernism with arguing that the endeavor is inherently injust. Yeah, if enough people hold to and spread the lie that "2+2=5," then at some point authentic patricians need to pick up the banner of noblese oblige and react against that. And one could assert furthermore that some collateral damage is legitimate, that one is still fighting a just war even if lots of mistakes are made. Maybe like most Americans, "rights" language has seeped into my being and it's difficult to relinquish this faith. To reverse the oft-heard formulation, "error actually does always have rights" - except for florists who don't want to cater gay weddings, of course.

Jason said...

Still, the practical dangers nonethless remain for those who want to take up such a crusade, and they are enormous. If one really wants to root out post-modernism, you can't stop at academia but will have to take on the entire religious/political/economic apparatus, nationally and globally. And not just cretins would be affected here, but decent individuals as well. What do you do about the millions of evangelicals for instance (and not a few mainliners and Catholics), who believe in a literal interpretation of the Creation Story in Genesis, or that all the manifold species in the entire world were stuffed together once in a little ark? Will preachers who espouse such religious post-modernism be silenced? Will those dumb Catholics you mentioned who embrace false truths lose university positions, be prohibited from posting on the Internet, be defrocked if recalcitrant? These are not idle or facecious concerns; hundreds of other analogous examples could be surmised of false concepts, derived from the Left and the Right and from everyone in between, that would need opposed or repudiated in the age we live in. (This is the dilemma of much of the Dissident Right incidentally, with many of its believers living in a gnostic world of perennial complaint and opposition: none of them have any concrete sense of how they will actually act, of taking on the lonely ambiguities of actually exercising power. I suppose some homage should be offered here to the Poles, Hungarians, and others, who in their flawed manners are at least taking the plunge.)

The Social Pathologist said...


I'm not sure if your comment is spam or not. Tell me a bit more about yourself.


Objective truth has to survive relativity

It only matters if you observing things from different frames of references. (observers traveling at different fractions of c relative to one another.)

Truth within a frame of reference is what matters. (Humanity is essentially moving within the same physical frame) Furthermore Lorentz transoformations let us see what the other does and correct for it. As you correctly assert, morals are of a different order.

Secondly, you're conflating frame of reference with subjectivity within a frame. Remember humans are all moving within the same frame.


. What do you do about the millions of evangelicals for instance (and not a few mainliners and Catholics), who believe in a literal interpretation of the Creation Story in Genesis,

The Fundy's are far less a danger When I fight with them we are actually fighting on the same terms. The Fundy believes in truth just as much as I do, though the Fundy is too stupid to go through the logical motions and transcend his cognitive biases. The PoMo, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the truth even if he could logically derive it. If you could prove to a PoMo that transgenderism is insanity, he couldn't care less because he'd rather be wrong in power than right in fact.

I think it is important not to conflate honestly held error with Postmodernism. There are no errors in Postmodernism, only who gets to wield power.

American Student (aka Anon1) said...


No, my first comment was not spam, just very, very earnest. Trust me -- a person would have to have way too much free time to troll you about something like this. As my name suggests, I'm a college student in the U.S. Reading through your postings, I once saw you briefly imply that you had converted to Catholicism. If this is true, then you and I have that experience in common. While at college, I made the decision to become a Catholic.

Although I'm a girl, I've learned more about love, marriage, and sex through blogs like yours than through the mainstream media aimed at women (Jezebel and other feminist websites, fashion magazines, TV shows). I feel that I'm at the age when I "should" be looking for a husband. I'm extremely cautious about entering into a relationship, which explains why I've never had a boyfriend. Other than cautiousness and shyness, I seem to do fine socially. I have good friends, and I can't remember the last time I made an enemy.

In my aim to find a husband, I've put a lot of effort into self-improvement. I maintain a healthy weight, learn how to cook nutritious meals, read books, avoid gossip, push past my shyness, stop complaining. Most of all, I try to live in a way that Christ would approve of (though, of course, I'm far from perfect). It's just so hard to find a guy who is both moral and masculine. It's always either one or the other. I could easily find a boyfriend among my classmates if I wanted to, but he would most likely be a moral relativist, and very likely a nihilist. He would also probably date me for a few years and then break up with me for whatever reason. He wouldn't be interested in marriage or having kids. On the other hand, I could find a kind, moral guy at church. Unfortunately, he would have such a low libido that he'd have no interest in asking me out. He'd rather read St. Thomas Aquinas than have sex. Believe me, nothing I could do or say could make them attracted to me.

My question is, what am I supposed to do? What am I doing wrong? Why do there seem to be so few men today who are both moral and masculine?

American Student said...

Maybe I should rephrase my last question. Why is it so hard to find a guy who has both moral decency and a healthy, normal sexuality?

The Social Pathologist said...

@American Student.

Thanks for your reply.

Just a couple of questions so that we're on the same page about things.

1) What is your BMI?
2) Can you link to a picture of someone who is similar category to yourself in appearance and dress. (I emphatically don't want a picture of yourself)

David Foster said...

American Student..."I could find a kind, moral guy at church. Unfortunately, he would have such a low libido that he'd have no interest in asking me out. He'd rather read St. Thomas Aquinas than have sex."

I'm not a Catholic, or for that matter a churchgoing man at all, but it strikes me that this must be an unusual church if its members are so scholarly that they read St Thomas Aquinas...not typical of average Catholics in my experience....wondering if you might do better at a different church?

The Social Pathologist said...

@ David

I think she touches on a very real problem affecting Christian males in the West.

Thoughts On Power said...

I don't see any way you could actually make this happen. You have a nuke you could bring to the gunfight? Then there's no reason to discuss any of this. I welcome the return of the British Gentleman's Club.

However if you don't have a nuke then what?

I also don't see how you can identify the permutations of PoMo without some kind of trained elite who know what it is and its mutating forms.

Even if you implemented your plan to axe universities that teach the subject you'd be left with black clad cigarette-smoking cool kids invalidating the authority of academia for anyone who wants to listen.

I think you wish to re-constitute a kind of protected intellectualism akin to the WASPs of the West from the recent past. However they stepped aside due to their intellectual adherence to the seemingly ethnicity-transcending values of their own beliefs. It was a brittle elite easily talked into their own demise.

Should you re-construct this you would have a similarly fragile elite ill-prepared for the next permutation of PoMo.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Thoughts of Power.

I also don't see how you can identify the permutations of PoMo without some kind of trained elite who know what it is and its mutating forms.

The Dissident Right needs intellectual cadres. One of the reason why the Trump presidency has been ineffective is because they don't understand the nature of the enemy. They need to attack and replace the managerial elite before they can implement effective policy.

Even if you implemented your plan to axe universities that teach the subject you'd be left with black clad cigarette-smoking cool kids invalidating the authority of academia for anyone who wants to listen

Most people go to university to get credentialled not educated. Take away the credentials and the audience for this crap dries up really fast. There will always be the occasional freak but they aren't important unless enough of the coalesce to form a critical mass.

I think you wish to re-constitute a kind of protected intellectualism akin to the WASPs of the West from the recent past.

No, I want to purge stupid and evil.

Should you re-construct this you would have a similarly fragile elite ill-prepared for the next permutation of PoMo.

There is no foolproof system. The founding fathers of the U.S. realised that if the people went rotten then all the laws in the world could not restrain them. If the good men fail the lights go out.

American Student said...

@The Social Pathologist

Haha, fair enough. It's uncomfortable to put this in writing, but it's relevant info, so here it goes:

1) My BMI is 22. I'm neither fat nor skinny.

2) In terms of appearance, dress, body fat, and comportment, I'm similar to the actress Jessica Brown Findlay.

I'm not being overly generous with myself. I'm good-looking enough that people stare on the subway/congratulate my parents. I'm not, however, beautiful enough to monetize my looks or intimidate men. If I had to quantify my looks, I'm a 7, maybe an 8 if I'm someone's type.

@David Foster

No, you're correct in guessing that my school is especially nerdy. It's fair to say that most of the Catholics on my campus are voracious readers of theology, so my school is atypical in that respect. I notice much-less bookishness in my home parish.

Thoughts On Power said...

"They need to attack and replace the managerial elite before they can implement effective policy."

I agree with this and that it's not well known that this needs to be done.

Even if Trump fired them all where would the replacements come from?

I'm having a hard time seeing your connecting steps to attacking PoMo in the current environment. It seems your way is Trads take power somehow (how?) and then impose their will through legislation.

What do you recommend as a concrete step forward for displacing PoMo now if using their own tools against them is akin to using the One Ring?

Anonymous said...

Anon2 here,

Fair enough, though, on all humans having the same frame, sometimes it takes a lot of faith to believe that some of the people I work with are moving in that frame.

The Social Pathologist said...

@American Student and TOP

Got home late tonight, will reply tomorrow.

The Social Pathologist said...

@American Student

Thanks for your reply.

Your looks aren't the issue. I think you touch upon a very real problem that other female friends of mine have mentioned as well.

Why is it so hard to find a guy who has both moral decency and a healthy, normal sexuality?

I think that many of the types that are going to be attracted to philosophy are going to be a bit "nerdy" by nature. And by nerdy, I also mean beta. I imagine that many of the guys you've been interested in have probably been interested in you, but are scared of rejection. I don't think women fully appreciate just how hard it is for a guy to approach a woman, especially when he has been rejected in the past. I should know, I was that guy.

And some of the rejections were brutal, which doesn't do much for your self esteem or confidence, which are vital factors in attractiveness. Not being labelled a creep with the concomitant destruction of your social reputation is also a factor.

No one wants to take a beating, so I imagine that one of the factors here is the problem of fear and shyness, not an actual a lack of sexuality.

I also think the other big factor at play here it the relationship between Christianity and Eros. And by Eros, I mean all the factors at play in opposite sex attraction. Traditional Christianity has really downplayed the erotic dimension of attraction and has emphasised the moral dimension of romance, positively working against some of the psychological and physical aspects of it. I think that many guys, operating from a Christian playbook are just not going to be assertive, charismatic and a bit "rough", rather they're going to play "nice" as Christian traditionalists. Humility, patience and deference are lovely moral virtues but they don't really activate arousal. It's very interesting to see just how many "Trads" are hostile to Game seeing it as synonymous with mortal sin, being unable to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So you take a young guy, who may be a bit on the nerdy and shy side, and teach him that its wrong to be assertive, charismatic and flirty. Futhermore, de-emphasise the importance of muscularity, appearance and emphasise, non assertiveness, deference and humility and you might as well chop the guy's nuts off.

There's your problem.

And I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's one of the reasons why Christianity is on the back foot. The guys supposedly fighting for it have no balls or have had them chopped off.

My advice to you is to keep yourself attractive and feminine (they are two separate qualities) while cultivating a skill which gives you the capacity for financial independence. Also, say your prayers. He does listen, though it sometimes appears that he takes a while to answer them.

And just for your information I met my wife in a pub, and we didn't get on at our first meeting. (She thought I was arrogant!) Circumstances afterward "pushed" us together and we've been married for over 20 years!

The Social Pathologist said...


Even if Trump fired them all where would the replacements come from?

There's heaps of talent out there, it just has to be utilised. I'm quite happy to use green managers who'll make mistakes just to get rid of the old professional guard.

What do you recommend as a concrete step forward for displacing PoMo

Defund them. They won't survive with private funding.

Trads take power somehow (how?) and then impose their will through legislation.

1) No Trads.

A legacy of failure is not a foundation for success.

2) (How?) Ballot box worked for Trump. He has executive power but it appears that he doesn't know how to wield it since he doesn't understand the problem. Bannon was quite explicit about the "cardinal sin" they made in "embracing the establishment". An astute reader of Burnham would not have made that mistake.

3) There is also a lot to be said for decentralisation and devolving power. One of the ways that that the Left has been able to capture the institutions of state is to centralise them first and then assume control of the organisation. Something which is hard to to when power is decentralsied.

Dan said...

@American Student

I disagree with your baseline assumption that reading Aquinas = low libido.

In fact, men who appreciate the works of certainly-high-testosterone men (creativity being a leading indicator of high testosterone) like Aquinas or fully appreciate the classics of say, a Mozart (definitely a high T guy), are likely high T men with the associated libidos themselves.

The issue is that most such men (like myself) who are in line with Natural Law/NRx/Traditional Catholicism, etc regard the vast majority of modern women to be unfit for marriage due to their having repeatedly acted out their state-of-nature sexual instincts which have been encouraged by modern societal conditioning. THOT a good wife does not make due to her societally emancipated sexuality, and THOT is the norm today.

We live in a legal environment of no fault divorce and alimony where women have both the unilateral power to break up families and are financially incentivized by the state to do so. Therefore, marriage becomes a seriously risky proposition, both physically and spiritually, to any man intelligent enough to grasp Aquinas. As a result, often times out goes the baby with the bathwater: these men disengage from mate-seeking altogether.

The bottom line: the high quality Catholic men you seek do not lack libido. Likely quite the opposite. However, they have observed the modern world and have concluded that marriage is an insane proposition outside of a context where the woman considers it a sacrament from God. And in the modern world, those women are few and very far between.

If you're in New England, let me know. I'm a high-t guy who lifts, goes to Latin Mass, and reads Aquinas. We exist.

Ingemar said...

Hm. Is there a reason why one could not take the tools of Postmodernism and apply it to itself?

Replace "Postmodernism" with "Sauron" and you're basically taking Boromir's position.

Jason said...

American Student, I was rather moved by your appeal to the good doctor here, so I thought I'd give my thoughts as an agnostic who has nonetheless had some experience with the Church. It seems to me that if your fellow male colleagues on campus are too effiminate, then somehow you should let them know this if you can perform the servive prudently. (Please note especially the adberb at the end of the sentence.) For example, if some guy in a class discussion tries to white-knight, then perhaps you should disagree with him in polite but no-uncertain terms, appealing to, say, a less gnostic version of natural law along with the contemporary human sciences to buttress what you argue. And in order to sweeten this "red" pill (actually perhaps "original sin" pill it a better way to put it) for all the fellows, also turn a critical eye towards your own sex; men quite understandably, I think, are getting tired of the constant "Man Up" mantra with no corresponding calls for the ladies to "Woman Up." And maybe at the end say something like, "for those who are interested in seeing where I'm coming from, there is this Australian Catholic who writes insightful about such matters based on his own experiences as a G.P....."

Obviously the above is a hypothetical; I'm sure you can come up with many other better scenarios of how you might deliver this crucial message in a coquettish, Emmaesque fashion. And not only would you be performing an act of charity for eventual Catholic husbands and fathers, but you would be improving your own romantic prospects as well. Especially if you do look like a Dowton Abbey suffragette, such "hints" might encourage campus males to read less Aquinas and become more manly "Irish lads" in order to win your hand.

My $.02 - make of it what you will.

Thoughts On Power said...

So the premise here is electoral victory by someone wiser than Trump.

Then new managers are installed and universities are defunded for PoMo instruction.

The question then is the likelihood of electoral victory by a wiser-than-Trump. I would think that outcome very unlikely but you never know...

Re-visiting actions to take to displace PoMo: For a person who would naturally engage with PoMo, yet oddly doesn't have the power to defund universities, what is the alternative, right path of action?

American Student said...

@The Social Pathologist

Thank you very much for your advice. Even though I can sense guys' nervousness and self-doubt when I talk to them, I don't make the mental connection that this apprehension is what makes them hesitant to ask me on a date. I forget how much the burden of rejection must hurt. As Jason also suggests, I can try to initiate things more. Since it's clear that my goal is NOT a sexual fling but rather a loving relationship, I don't have to worry about looking promiscuous.

I'll continue to work hard in school, and I'm pursuing a career that will provide me stable employment, financial independence, and a great amount of fulfillment and purpose. I don't pray as much as I should, mostly because, as you mention, I feel that He's not listening. But I will pray more.

Time after time, the people who made the worst first impressions on me became my closest, most-trusted friends. It's wonderful that this happened in your case, too.


Yes, thottery runs rampant today. Rarely do Christian men on my campus express disgust with modern women, but I suppose their reluctance to date does the talking for them. I have never, however, heard a guy lament divorce and the current state of marriage.

If what you're saying is true, if Christian men do have normal libidos, then the only thing I can do is shape myself into an attractive potential wife.

Unfortunately, I'm not near New England. I wish you the best of luck.


I share my views with my classmates as diplomatically as I can. I sense that my male classmates appreciate when I criticize specific feminist ideas. I think the cognitive dissonance of hearing a polite girl say brutally pragmatic opinions lends weight to what I say. But you have to remember the extent to which American universities are postmodernist, PC indoctrination camps. I have given balanced, clear explanations of my opinions and have been brushed off because (as stated in SP's posting) "that's your opinion. I have my opinion."

I try to be careful in what I say because I don't want to add to the feminist pile-on against men. At the same time, I try to avoid the stereotypical catty female behavior of constantly disparaging other girls, so I probably wouldn't call out women for their shameful actions. If I could give advice to my male peers, I'd say "loosen up," not "man up." I wish they felt more comfortable just being themselves instead of exhaustingly self-censoring to appease girls and professors.

Sadly, I wouldn't be able to mention this blog without alienating my peers. Again, in such a liberal environment, even suggesting that, for example, gay marriage is not a right would be social suicide.

Jason said...

Thanks for you thoughtful response, American Student. I hate to give more advice, since that is the easiest thing in the universe to do, but perhaps you need to seek men also outside of campus, especially if you live in a major city and/or attend college there. I know First Things magazine, whose theology and ethics appear to match you own, has discussion groups (RAFTERS, I think) around the country where you might "network." You might also consider emailing the blogger Rod Dreher about your concerns here, someone who knows a lot about orthodox Christian groups around the country and could give suggestions. (He once sent me an unsolicited email message in regards to a trip my mom and I were making to Italy, which was rather generous of him. Of course, I can't say that he would necessarily do the same for you, but he might.) There is a traditionalist blogger named Donal Graeme whose website you might want to peruse, assuming that the Catholic manosphere is your cup of tea. If I think of anything else I'll mention here.


American Student said...


No need to apologize. Your advice is very helpful.

I'm familiar with First Things. According to their website, there are many active discussion groups around me. Donal Graeme's blog looks great. I've made a mental bookmark of it.

Greg said...

Hicks' book used to be provided for free (due to it being unavailable in some countries). Here's an archived PDF from his website, for those interested:

Thoughts On Power said...

Hicks: "The heirs of the Enlightenment are running the world, and they have marginalized the post-modernists to the academy"

What a fantasy if he thinks the post-modernists are only in the academy!

This guy says he wants to preserve the values of the "Enlightenment". He's mad.

This is the same set of values that got us to where we are now. It's not just post-modernism springing from nowhere. It's noticing that the running of the world by the "heirs of the Enlightenment" are turning into an accelerating disaster.

The problem with this kind of approach is the negation of the true dimension of what is represented by post-modernism and that is a spiritual conflict.

Greg said...

A very interesting comment/response by Dr. Weinstein:

"Evolutionarily: "females" exert the braking force on sex. That's true even in plants.

In humans, the mechanism has involved social stigma and fear of pregnancy. Both have now been radically altered.

The change robs those women who prioritize high-stakes love over casual sex."


The whole thread, and the rest of the comments by Weinstein, do work to explain the current situation. Weinstein would likely agree with some of the conclusions in this article:

Thoughts On Power said...

"The change robs those women who prioritize high-stakes love over casual sex"

No mention of men's perspectives, of course. It's the women who are robbed supposedly even if all the other writing contradicts this.

Same with the Catholic article - they frame their perspective in terms of anti-sexism!

Post-modernism is supposedly bad yet clearly Catholic writing is using the argument frames of modernity and feminism.

Anonymous said...


Off topic but since you're a physician I'd like to know if you think vaccines cause autism (zippy says they do), and whether you think parents should vaccinate their children. My doctors are hardcore progs, so I am sceptical about what they tell me.

The Social Pathologist said...


"I'd like to know if you think vaccines cause autism"


My children got all their immunisations. I recommend immunisation to everyone.


The immunisation/autism people are barking up the wrong tree. The evidence is suggesting Autism is a disease of gene expression not immunological reaction. One of the big reasons why we've had such a hard time understanding autism is because our minds have been clouded by the central dogma of biology which is now shown to be an incomplete understanding of things. The reason why the disease is a "spectrum" is because there are many different ways you can dysregulate gene expression and therefore there is a spectrum of neurological impairments.

Thoughts On Power said...

Zippy's post is great.

If autism is not immunological but rather due to dysregulating genes how does that change things? After all, vaccines alter gene expression.

One example is the hepatitis B vaccine which showed "expression of 144 genes in the liver was significantly changed after 1 day of vaccination". (Molecular Biology Reports, March 2012, Vol 39, Issue 3)

Remember that birth control pills were said to be safe, particularly at lower doses, yet they are now known to increase rates of breast cancer at any dose!

Those with a high percentage of Neanderthal genes claim online that vaccines target their genetics. A person could get tested first.

All biology studies are based on statistical distribution and any individual could be an outlier.

MK said...

I know this isn't an immunization post, and I haven't read Zippy on it, but:

Immunization makes sense in some cases but in most does not. Mere mathematics; the death/illness rate vs risk of taking. This alone should give people pause in trusting government data since the government is clearly agenda driven, not reasonable nor rational. Why? Money? I don't know.

Of course, there is much we don't know risk in taking vaccines, so whatever is calculated should be a "lower threshold" to account for the unknown risk.

Being a good engineer, I once did a simple version of this calc based upon government data. Tetanus was the only one that made sense at all. And not even that one when you added in the risk of driving to get the shot! I didn't add in the risk of getting sick from the needles/around other sick people/nor the risk of the unknown side effects. And that gives an idea of how low the risks are. And remember this includes all low SES folk out there who are more likely to get ill, making my chances are much lower still. Hence, no vaccinations is the best logical choice for educated and healthy people. But humans are not logical nor educated and it's so trivial it don't matter. QED.

One last point: people are really screwed up if they care about vaccinations at all, since heart disease, diabetes, diet are real epidemics yet nobody is banning grains and sugar yet freak about vaccinations. People are really stupid.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MK said...

AS: I expected you to get more suggestions so never said anything above. But few anted up so here's mine (RC-dad, double-digit family, your BMI, high-T w/many high-T sons & understand your concerns and fully agree it's a real, crazy problem so fear for my daughters who match most of your metrics):

a) Strive to network with other girls from large families.
b) Give masculine men who seem less-than-ideal spiritually a look. May be surprised.
c) Work very, very hard to overcome shyness by networking with other girls.
d) Drop clues you are anti-feminist; many more high-T will approach you.
e) Don't settle nor act desperate; play the field.

Alan2102 said...

"At it's most basic, Postmodernism rejects the notion of an objective truth"

No it doesn't. Shame on you for representing it in this ignorant way. If you knew anything about postmodernism (beyond what you read in some shallow anti-"cultural marxism" screed) you would know that they don't reject the notion of objective truth. The reject the absolute privileging of one narrative or truth claim over another. That is NOT the same as saying "there is no objective truth". There MAY BE an objective truth. The question is: WHO, if anyone, can claim that they have it, and WHY. And those are very difficult questions.

The Social Pathologist said...


Shame on you for representing it in this ignorant way.


I'll admit that there is a degree of subjectivity in the apprehension of reality, but the traditional Western view is that there IS an objective truth. It was always held that men were capable of honest error but an opinion is only valid if it conform to the truth. Empirical observation, logic and free debate were methods by which we came to know reality but the idea that everyone's opinion had equal validity was false. The test of the validity of an opinion was in its calibration to reality, not in the simple possession of an opinion.

Claiming that there is a Truth but that there's no way we're capable of knowing it is cognitively more sophisticated way of functionally negating the concept. The end point is the same. i.e there is no truth. It's like having a right while not being able to exercise it. For the post Modernist, the notion that 2+2=5 has the same validity as the notion that 2+2=4. Claiming that the latter is logically consistent is simply code for privilege.

The thing about Western Civ is that it created rules of privilege that privileged opinions that were reality calibrated over opinions that were not. Logic, empirical demonstration, the scientific method, mathematics and functional operation were tests of reality calibration. It isn't hard. The problem with this "rules" based approach is that it undercut the tennets of Marxism and whatever other idiocy was flavour du jour.

There MAY BE an objective truth

To say this is to reveal yourself. What differs the Right from your darkness is the assertion that there is a Truth and that it is man's duty to find it out and live by it. The man who tells me that 2+2=5 is wrong, and a Post Modernist who tells me that its as valid opinion as any other, or that it is difficult to determine which opinion is right, is full of shit.

And when you can't appeal to logic then you've got to appeal to force. That's why Post Modernism always leads to Orwell's room 101.