Book Review: William Torrey Harris – The Philosophy of Education, Lecure IV

Continuing this review. Lecture I review here, Lecture II here, Lecture III here. Going into more detail than usually is possible, including just pasting the the entire lecture below, because of Harris’s importance in advancing compulsory state schooling, and the lectures are short enough to admit of it.

One more after this one. Another lecture written as one run-on paragraph. This one, more than the previous, appears to be just an outline or notes. I’d assume there was a lively discussion period afterwards?

LECTURE IV. January 25th, 1893. ROUSSEAU AND THE RETURN TO NATURE. REVOLUTIONARY PROTEST. (found here.)

The time of Louis XIV: the nobles attracted to Court and to a life of gayety, neglecting their estates and wasting the fruits of toil in riotous living ; the laborers deprived of the advantage of the directive power of the nobility fail in power of production. The French Revolution is the result. Rousseau its prophet ; he proclaims a return to nature. “Nature,” a word of ambiguous meaning; human nature versus physical nature; human history the revelation of man’s nature; it is realized in institutions and not by man as an isolated individual. Nature in time and space is under the dominion of necessity, everything constrained to be what it is by outside forces. Human nature is an ideal, and when realized it has the form of freedom and self-determination, each man a law unto himself and each one engaged in helping every other one, for by this each one helps himself. Rousseau appealed to nature in everything. What we call civilization was to him a mere artificial form. His plea was to be natural, come back to the point where nature leaves you. Rousseau came from Switzerland to France, and at an opportune time for him ; for there was a great ferment of ideas at this epoch. He was struggling along in Paris, barely securing a livelihood, when there came the offer from the Academy of Dijon of a prize for an essay on the progress of the arts and sciences, whether it has tended towards the purification of morals and manners. The negative side suggested itself more forcibly to him, as he was better fitted for it by his mode of living and morals, and by his literary style, and he found himself at once a “censor of civilization.” This essay was soon followed (1752) by one on the origin of the inequality among men. The great tension produced by the artificiality of the civilization of the Court life of the time had caused men to become anxious to get back to a simplicity of living, and Chateau briand painted the charms of the forest life of the Indians. In this reaction the meaning of civilization is ignored. Man emancipates himself from drudgery and compels nature by the forces of his intellect to feed and clothe him. The “Social Contract” followed (1762) this with an attack on the authority of the State; and in the same year his Emile undermined the School and the Church : and so he attacked all the social institutions one after another the family, civil society, the Church and State. He proposed to sweep all away by summoning them before the bar of his individual judgment and condemning all. In the opening paragraph of his Emile he declares that everything which comes from nature is good, while everything degenerates in the hands of man. The antithesis of civilization is savagery, and Voltaire wittily exposed the fallacy of Rousseau’s teaching in his letter accepting the book. He said “never has anyone employed so much genius to make us into beasts. When one reads your book he is seized at once with a desire to go down on all fours.” External authority is a perennial necessity for man in his immaturity. An appeal to nature is always a piece of jugglery with words. In mere nature we have matter and force. Everything inorganic is made by some external influence. But organic nature is the opposite of inorganic. The plant has the power of assimilation, and the animal the further powers of locomotion and feeling, or ability to select or choose its surroundings. In man this is still further increased by recollection and memory, by which the mind makes over its impressions. To do his duty properly he must look to higher things, and in ethical ideas the human becomes transcendental. The moral man acts as though the sole being in the world is humanity. No natural instinct is admitted as having validity against the moral law. If we adopt the doctrines of material nature and yield to our feelings and impulses, we remain animals. But if we take nature in the sense of our ideal, divine possibility, and realize it by education, we attain to human nature properly so-called, which is not something given us without effort, but only the product of culture.

Harris is an Hegelian:

With Brockmeyer and other of the St. Louis Hegelians, he founded and edited the first philosophical periodical in America, the Journal of Speculative Philosophy (1867), editing it until 1893. It promoted the view that the entire unfolding was part of a universal plan, a working out of an eternal historical dialectic, as theorized by Hegel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Torrey_Harris

It is said that Harris, as the United States Commissioner of Education, tried to make Hegelianism the official philosophy of American compulsory schooling. He only succeeded in making it, as dumbed down(!) by his incorrigible idiot child Marx, the *unofficial* philosophy of American schooling.

Now, the primary and defining belief of Hegelians is that they’re smarter and, most importantly, more enlightened than everybody else. They worship the power they lack but feel they deserve. Therefore, in their world, ignorant masses need (and deserve) to be lead into the glorious future by better people: “…the laborers deprived of the advantage of the directive power of the nobility fail in power of production. The French Revolution is the result.” Catch that? One might suspect that Harris is not entirely on board with America’s idealized egalitarianism. Also, I’m thinking there might be a few more tiny steps between indolent French counts and marquis neglecting to guide the farm hands and the Committee for Public Safety decapitating nuns. But hey, I’m not an Hegelian.

Following right on the heels of this vigorous & evidently double-jointed self back-patting (1) and not so subtle petulance about not being in charge is the idea of Progress: there’s this universal plan, see, under which the Spirit (2) reveals itself to itself inevitably through History. Through, of course, the ministration of enlightened Hegelians such as Harris, whose belief in the inevitability of Progress doesn’t seem to extend far enough to stay the hell out of imposing it on others.

Rousseau is a manifest idiot. Figures he’d be the prophet of the murderous idiocy of the French Revolution.

Now we get to the hardcore Hegelianism:

“Nature,” a word of ambiguous meaning; human nature versus physical nature; human history the revelation of man’s nature; it is realized in institutions and not by man as an isolated individual. Nature in time and space is under the dominion of necessity, everything constrained to be what it is by outside forces. Human nature is an ideal, and when realized it has the form of freedom and self-determination, each man a law unto himself and each one engaged in helping every other one, for by this each one helps himself.

Digression: Generally, the world, or ‘Nature,’ can be understood according to two general steps. The base level is either/or, as succinctly stated in the Law of Noncontradiction. The next level is both/and, and is perhaps best expressed in the Schoolmen’s advice: “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.” Using these two steps, one first establishes what is logically necessary and what is common experience, and moves from there to what might be (conditionally) true about the world. The Church, for example, has for centuries issued anathemas and proclaimed dogmas as a first step, then seemingly splits hairs when considering the application of those dogmas and anathemas. Science works the same way: the definitions and assumptions are necessarily dogmatic; data collection is always thoroughly hedged in by the assumptions and definitions; conclusions are always conditional. In both cases, we may yearn for more forceful and unconditioned conclusions, but the careful thinker is not likely to give us them.

Hegel strove for a third way: he wanted a dialectic within which everything is conditional – nothing ‘is, everything is ‘becoming’ – where violations of the Law of Noncontradiction were never resolved but rather suspended in the synthesis, where the currently unknowable workings of the Spirit create a new reality in its unfolding through time.

If this sounds like bafflegab, that’s because it is. It’s meant to fend off – summarily dismiss, really – the sort of careful dissection of questions which is the hallmark both of the Aristotelian/Thomist schools and science insofar as science works. (3) Hegel, and Marx much more so, are simply nonsensical. They contradict themselves in word and deed at every step. But since they know they’re right – what superior individual does not? – these contradictions must not be valid. Therefore, etc.

Here’s where Harris gets evil: “…human history the revelation of man’s nature; it is realized in institutions and not by man as an isolated individual.” Under the both/and approach, one would distinguish as follows: it is the inalienable dignity of men as individuals that gives any meaning to the institutions within which man finds himself; yet it is true that men are formed and most fully realized within these institutions: marriage, family, village, state and church. Under Harris’s formulation, one would focus all efforts on changing institutions (sound familiar?): change the institution – school, in Harris’s case – and thus change the individuals.

One of the things naive supporters of more centralized control over people – progressives, socialists, Marxists (but I repeat myself) – seem unable to imagine is that this control, once established, will not long remain in the hand of the avuncular and well-intentioned as they imagine the Bern to be, but will in short order end up in the hands of Pol Pot. That’s the lesson of small ‘h’ history; that’s why capital ‘H’ History seeks to ignore and rewrite it.

Another historical aside: throughout the history of philosophy, there have been camps promoting multiple truths that need not gibe, and those after the beloved Emerson Cod: “The truth ain’t like puppies, a bunch of them running around, you pick your favorite. One truth… and it has come a knockin’.”

Here, Harris is proposing that there’s a material world of complete determination, and a spiritual world where, once idealized human nature is realized, everyone will be perfect little saints. Not one world of matter and form, but two worlds where different truths prevail. Subtle, but important: rather than a man striving to be personally better as a creature comprising an inseparable and essential body and soul, Gnosticism has crept back from the dead: the body is evil, only the soul is good. Gnosticism has proven many times over the centuries to ba an idea tending inexorably toward misery.

We have thus arrived at a situation that should sound very current and familiar: we are to focus our attention on changing institutions, which, once conformed to the enlightened ideas of the elect, will produce perfect, happy little people. Remember, enlightenment means never having to listen, let alone explain yourself, to the unenlightened – they just won’t understand! (This also conveniently absolves the enlightened from having to personally behave themselves, since their personal behaviour has no effect by definition: Weinstein can rape away and Gore and AOC can jet around like rock stars, just so long as they mouth the right platitudes in favor of *institutional* change.)

After thankfully disposing of Rousseau – hey! Stopped clock got one right! – Harris turns back to his own naive mysticism:

External authority is a perennial necessity for man in his immaturity. An appeal to nature is always a piece of jugglery with words.

That he considers man immature is almost a tautology; that he considers appeals to human nature ‘jugglery’ is an appeal to more Hegelian and especially Marxist nonsense: while Hegel merely denies any permanence to our understanding of human nature – it’s unfolding along with the Spirit, and is always becoming, never being – Marx just flat out denies the existence of human nature: it’s a social construct, man.

He and his will be happy to provide the external authority needed by us immature people until the point at which we are mature: by definition, when we agree with Harris. Not quite fair: when we agree with Harris, we will be counted among the enlightened and allowed to indulge our tyrannical jones over the less enlightened and sit at the Kool Kids Table until the Spirit is done unfolding itself. Not kidding: Harris worked his whole adult life to make the schools the instrument of the Enlightened.

He succeeded.

To do his duty properly he must look to higher things, and in ethical ideas the human becomes transcendental. The moral man acts as though the sole being in the world is humanity. No natural instinct is admitted as having validity against the moral law. If we adopt the doctrines of material nature and yield to our feelings and impulses, we remain animals. But if we take nature in the sense of our ideal, divine possibility, and realize it by education, we attain to human nature properly so-called, which is not something given us without effort, but only the product of culture.

Ethical ideas are spiritual. Natural instincts are controlled by morality. Going with feels is to remain an animal. So far so good. “But if we take nature in the sense of our ideal, divine possibility,” This sounds sensible, out of context “… and realize it by education, we attain to human nature properly so-called, which is not something given us without effort, but only the product of culture. OK, so we yearn to fulfill our divine destiny, which can be realized through – school? We’ll school kids so that they will change the culture? To bring about the Hegelian Valhalla?

What could possibly go wrong?

One more lecture to go.

  1. How do they not pull a muscle?
  2. Hegel may not have invented the practice of renaming old ideas in order to sound smart and hip, but he certainly advanced the art: here, anybody else would say ‘God’, but that turf had already been worked over pretty good by the Salvation History folks, most prominently Augustine. In contrast to Hegel’s Spirit unfolding and coming to know itself History, Salvation History posits, on the one hand, a God Who reveals Himself to us over time and on the other a lamentably realistic view of secular history as one long tragic train of failure punctuated every now and then by a passing victory, until, in the end, we all lose – and then Jesus comes! Hegel wanted God embedded, as it were, with the forward troops in a long march to Victory! Marx’s eschatology, all but indistinguishable in outline from traditional Christian eschatology
    excepting that that God person has been renamed History, reflects this persistence.
  3. The irony here: Hegel, writing in the early 19th century, assumes Progress is so completely obvious that his task is to explain the origins and workings of that Progress. In doing so, he dismisses scientists, mathematicians, and technologists as the little people, those who need to use logic and reason as traditionally understood – not *real* philosophers like Hegel, who have transcended all such crutches. Problem: the only really obvious progress has been made by precisely those scientists, mathematicians and technologist Hegel dismisses. Everything else we might want to call progress is highly debatable, to say the least. He saws off the branch he’s sitting on.

Music at Mass Nano-Review 5/5/19

Due to scheduling requirements, we went to a Children’s Mass this morning that we almost never attend.

There’s nothing that elevates the spiritual experience of the Holy Eucharist quite like having a gaggle of pitchy tween girls sing praise tunes in a reverby box of a church building with rock band level amplification.

Image result for back to the future amp gif

The girls were darling, of course, which I suppose is the point. Have a nice Sunday!

Saying ‘No’ to Gender Theory: Case Study (cont’d)

Image result for sunset

In previous posts (here and here) I’ve mentioned how our little school, which my wife and I helped found 23 years ago, through which all 5 of our children passed (our 15 year old is still there) and for which my wife worked, often for no pay, over most of the last 20 years, has decided that not calling someone by his preferred pronoun is, effectively, a hate crime subjecting the perp to discipline by the school. The way the rule was worded extended the reach of the school everywhere: never mind if it’s accidental, the person referred to isn’t there at the time, or, theoretically, at least, if it happens off campus: comply, or suffer the consequences.

The latest: at last night’s Assembly Meeting (parents + students + at large members – attendance is optional, so maybe 20 people showed up) where we pass next year’s budget, elect officers, fill committees and hear reports, my wife, one of the very bravest people I’ve ever known, stood up and announced that she was not returning for staff next year, because the school had mandated compliance with ‘gender affirmation’, making it an offense subject to school discipline for anyone to not use a person’s preferred pronoun, and effectively silencing all opposition.

A few people actually make surprised and sympathetic noises, but, apart from me and our 15 year old son, everyone was on the side of gender theory. The best we got were some questions on why it wasn’t OK for someone to disagree if they were polite about it, and a few ‘it was nice knowing you’ testimonials. The Dunning-Kruger crowd, who orchestrated chasing us off and thinks they’re going to run things just fine, was predictably silent.

My beloved’s sense of duty will keep her there for the next 5 weeks until school is out. Our son, who will likewise finish the year, will be ‘home schooled’ (meaning: he can do whatever he wants, which these days means reading, doing an hour of Khan Academy, Boy Scout stuff and playing video games) until he’s 16. Then, he can figure out what he wants to do next, and we’ll strategize. (All his 4 siblings went to college with no more prep than he has now. I repeat: don’t sweat this stuff!)

There are a few loose ends to tie up, but basically, we’re done and frankly relieved. I don’t expect this to end quite this quietly, but am at a loss to imagine, at this point, how the diabolical ugliness will next manifest itself.

Further updates as events warrant.

An Epidemic of Diagnosis Revisited, Sort Of

Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos

I was pretty sure I’d written about this 2007 essay in the NYT, but evidently not, according to a search of blog archives. In it, a doctor points out something that should be obvious: as we add more healthcare to our lives, we are going to get more of what healthcare produces. He notes that what healthcare produces is not health, but diagnoses. Healthcare professionals are in the business, first and foremost, of telling us what is wrong with us. Only once we’ve been diagnosed can the wheels of the machinery of the healthcare system turn.

Improvements in healthcare have helped us to generally have longer, healthier lives than at any point in history. Not as much as the real, if unromantic, big three of plenty of food, clean water and good sanitation. Get those three right – and avoid wars, but these things go together in practice – and people start generally living pretty long lives, long enough to die from old people causes like cancer and heart disease instead of dysentery and rickets.

We have more healthcare, the largest, most expensive healthcare system in history, because we’ve demanded, in the literal and economic senses, more healthcare. We’re loath to admit the human body is simply too complex and fragile, too prone to break down and suffer injury and disease, for lifelong health to be anything other than a stroke of luck or a blessing, and even more loath to come to grips with the inevitability of death. Nope, we ignore all experience, and come to think vigorous good health is what we deserve, and that something is horribly wrong if we don’t get it. We demand, pounding our little feet and throwing haystacks of cash, that Science cure cancer, prevent diseases and in general fix any and every problem we have.

We demand: Tell me what’s wrong, then FIX IT! We’ve learned, from our car mechanic if nowhere else, that sometimes it’s hard to figure out what’s wrong. We’ve internalized the reality that, sometimes, a diagnosis is just an opinion among many possible opinions. We’ve learned to seek a second or third or fourth opinion until we find one we like.

We have not learned, it seems, to distrust the diagnostic process itself.

If this is true of mundane things like cars and the human body, it is much more true of the difficult and subtle human mind and soul. We desperately seek a diagnosis, which, when we get one we like, becomes our identity. In English, we even say: I *am* on the spectrum; I *am* depressed, or gay, or transgender, or oppressed, or a million other things. To attack our diagnosis is to attack us. We are our diagnoses.

Listen for it: so often, these days, we will hear a person’s diagnosis within minutes of meeting them. “I’m a *blank*” As if *blank* is the key information, as in, it unlocks and settles everything.

As the Percy quotation above shows, in his inimical style, this need to have someone else tell us who we are is so pervasive and compelling that many millions of us turn to astrology (1) or worse just to get our diagnosis. What the diagnosis is, as he demonstrates, matters far less than that we have one. We are so lost in the cosmos that we’ll cling to anything to stay afloat, anything to distract us from facing the brutal reality of who we really are.

If only this self-delusion were the worst of it. The real killer diagnoses are projection and protection. In the first, rather than engaging with those we disagree with or otherwise find unpleasant or in any way disconcerting, we diagnose them as having a disorder that prescribes summary dismissal: they are only saying that or behaving that way because they are *blank* – religious, conservative, liberal, stupid, evil, etc. (Note that it’s the prescription that makes this a diagnostic ritual: if you simply observe someone is promoting progressive ideas, say, BUT do not use that as an excuse to not engage with them, that’s just basic intellectual awareness.)

Even worse, as mentioned under point 3 in the last post, is the diagnosis of others that lets us off the hook: my child *IS* ADHD, therefore drugs and your acceptance are the only answers. No fair looking at his home life or parental and school expectations that make demands upon the kid that he’s not interested in fulfilling and cause him massive stress – nope, it’s drugs and acceptance, AND THAT’S FINAL! (2)

But of course it’s the gender dysphoria diagnosis that’s the real killer – literally, given the suicide and self-harm rates among those confused about their sexual identity. It’s the parents who love that diagnosis, because now everything is known, the prescription is complete, and every future problem is accounted for in advance. And no finger is ever allowed to be pointed at me, no matter how chaotic and emotionally abusive my serial polygamy or just plain rutting around is for my kid. Nope, we must bless and worship his confusion, so that even he embraces the insanity. Just so long as I’m off the hook.

Marxist social criticism at its best, destroying lives, sowing unhappiness and using the weakest and most damaged among us for their political ends. Not to mention promulgating some of the stupidest ideas known to man.

  1. Have to tell this off topic story: in my early 20s, somehow got dragged into a panel discussion of astrology, as the token Thomist (I wish). So I did research – Thomas does address astrology in an interesting way – and gave my little spiel (and that’s yet another story). Afterwards, at a party at St. John’s (lived in the neighborhood), I mentioned that I’d done a bunch of research on astrology for this talk, noted that Thomas doesn’t summarily dismiss it, and an attractive young woman I barely knew said: really? What sign am I? Somehow, I managed to deadpan a reply using appropriate astrological bafflegab, after which I answered: therefore, you’re an Aquarius (or whatever). I guessed right. Her mind was blown. I managed to keep my straight face, knowing that I would be right about 8% of the time, and had gotten lucky. Not ‘lucky’ lucky – you know what I mean, get your mind out of the gutter!
  2. Mandatory disclaimer: there very well might be something to ADHD diagnoses, I don’t know, but there’s certainly something to ADHD over-diagnoses.

No to Gender Theory: 3 Reasons

Still beating myself up over having done such a woefully poor job stating the rational reasons why anyone of good will and sound mind should reject Gender Theory. So, assuming there are people willing to consider being swayed in their support for this bit of carefully-constructed propaganda
by reasonable arguments (both such posited people are hanging with Sasquatch on the shores of Loch Ness, one imagines), here we go, from simplest and most obvious to more complex and subtle:

1 The policy of gender affirmation – of affirming anyone’s stated gender with no questions asked or even allowed – is built on the more general principle that a person’s identity is something he and he alone can define. Appeals to anything outside the individual’s own feelings about who he is are a clear form of oppression, and must always be opposed.

Thus, if a little girl says she’s a boy, she IS a boy, and her subjective feelings about her gender have created objective moral and legal obligations on everyone else: I MUST affirm her feelings; I am subject to legal consequences if I don’t.

This much is clear, and is the claim routinely made by gender theorists. But the principle – that a person’s identity is something he and he alone can define – cannot reasonably be confined to gender. If gender is a social construct, then so is everything else. This much is also routinely confirmed by gender theorists: everything is a social construct.

Therefore, if the little girl were to assert that she is not only a boy, but a fat boy, we likewise have no moral option but to affirm it. To disagree would be to make an appeal to objective reality, and such appeals have already been ruled out when we mandate affirmation of her assertion she is a boy. Body image is a social construct, after all. Thus, we can only affirm that this little girl is now a fat boy. To do otherwise would be hateful and oppressive.

In my experience, this is exactly what children of all ages feel is the correct response: the little wisp of a girl is now a fat boy. Period.

Now the fat boy announces that since he is a fat boy, he is going to the bathroom to puke up his lunch. Well? If you object based on objective reality, noting that it’s bad for you to puke up you lunch, the fat boy can simply reply that, as a fat boy, it’s not bad for him and besides, who are you to judge? Health, after all, is a social construct.

Finally, the fat boy says he finds life too tiresome to endure, and so wants to kill himself. On what basis could a gender theorist possibly object? On what basis could any argument be made that wanting to kill yourself is anything other than a sacred act of self-definition, just like gender and body image and health? A preference for life over death is the ultimate social construct: if we won’t argue with grandma when she seeks assisted suicide, how can we argue with an 8 year old who wants to die? To even try to dissuade him is an act of violence, oppression and hate.

Gender affirmation leads inescapably to the demand that all affirm and support a child’s wish to kill himself. To this, all reasonable people should object. Encouraging and helping children to kill themselves is monstrous. Nor is this a theoretical issue, as all statistics show a very much heightened incidents of suicide and attempted suicide and other self-destructive behaviors among children suffering under confusion about their sexual identity. Sane and loving adults try to help such children find reasons to live; a logically consistent gender theorist would necessarily find ways to help them die.

2 Background: when Fichte, who laid the philosophical and political foundation for modern compulsory graded classroom schooling back in 1811, asserted that the goal of schooling is to render the student incapable of thinking anything his teacher didn’t want him to think, he found instant enthusiastic acceptance among the ruling and managerial classes of Prussia, who promptly set about implementing Fichte’s ideas. When William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education 1889 – 1906, stated that 99 out of a 100 students are automata, and that this was the result of substantial education scientifically understood, he was not expressing a hope, but stating a *fact*.

What our schooling – public, and all private that uses graded classrooms – is intended to do is establish what might technically be called ‘epistemic closure’. The teacher, and much more importantly, the structure of the schools build and reinforce the feeling that success is gotten primarily by doing what you are told and secondarily by regurgitating what you’ve been taught. Failure is much more linked to failing to conform – to bells, lines, schedules, and arbitrary commands – than to learning anything. Troublemakers are not those who don’t do their Spanish homework, but rather they’re the ones who get up to use the restroom without asking permission.

This inculcation of mindless conformity is the whole point of schooling, as Fichte, Mann, Dewey, Freire, and all the fine graduates of education schools understood and understand, albeit the idea is typically dressed in bafflegab and diversions. For example, Freire, who is required reading in all the better education schools, states flatly that the goal of education is to ‘radicalize the student’. Learning anything concrete, things that might even better their lives, is not irrelevant, but positively counterproductive.

A radicalized student has achieved perfect epistemic closure. His every thought is shaped by what he has learned in school – he cannot even think anything his teacher would not want him to think. All allowable questions have been formulated; all possible answers have been defined. When faced with an opinion that denies his assumption, with questions that lie outside the closure, with answers or, worse, results that fail to conform to the prescribed schema, the only possible reactions are confusion and anger.

One sees this state all the time. People will say they ‘don’t understand” positions they have spent exactly zero time and effort trying to understand; name calling, often vile, is used to answer challenges. Finally, an concerted effort is made to silence those who dare challenge the closure.

Gender theory exists entirely within the epistemic closure now enforced in all colleges and universities (with negligibly minor exceptions), and, by extension, in all professions and polite pseudo-educated circles in their orbits. This fact is of course completely invisible to those within the closure, as is the fact that nobody outside the closure accepts gender theory. There are 1.4 billion Indians and a similar number of Chinese, as well as another billion total Africans and South Americans. There’s another billion plus across Southeast Asia, not to mention 1.6 billion Muslims. My rough math, and allowing for some overlap, suggests that 5 and a half billion out of 7 billion people on earth either have never heard of gender theory or, if they have, laughed or cursed it off the stage. Then, even in Western Europe, America, Canada and Australia, it’s likely a small minority who really embrace it – many people may roll their eyes and go along, but they have yet to feel the enforcement arm. Their day is coming.

Because people within the closure accept it not on the basis of argument, but because it’s what their teachers, broadly understood, have trained them to accept, the vast majority of people under the spell will have no idea and less interest in where their ideas come from or where they lead. It would be a miracle if any even listened to the following very straightforward and easily confirmable (Google, anyone? Wiki-freakin’-pedia?) account of the origins of Gender Theory.

That’s the background. Now for the facts.

Gender Theory is a sub-discipline of Critical Theory: Wikipedia has gotten increasingly coy over the last few years, and no longer simply states the fact, but look at how Gender Studies are categorized at the bottom of the page. Other sources are less circumspect: here is a site called critical-theory.com, with articles about gender theory.

Critical Theory is Marxism repackaged as various academic ‘disciplines’:
See here, for example, or here, where the Encyclopedia Britannica describes it as ‘Marxist inspired’. Marxists, starting with Marx and his incessant and largely irrelevant footnotes to Capital, love to drag in other fields to ‘prove’ their ‘science’ – thus, all sorts of deconstructionists, feminists, Nazis (Heidegger, one of Critical Theory’s “3 Hs” was a freakin’ literal member of the National Socialist Workers Party under Hitler), obscurantists (Husserl makes Withers sound like Frost) and philosophers (Hegel is the first H) get drafted or recruited to the cause, and used to misdirect away from Critical Theory’s obvious Marxism. See? It’s not just Marxism! Hey, it works on the historically and philosophically clueless – 99% of all recent college grads, for pertinent example.

Since reality contradicts Marxist theory at every turn, reality must be denied: Everything is a social construct. From within the epistemic closure, this sounds profound – at least, you can count on everybody in your classroom or faculty lounge nodding seriously whenever anything is declared a social construct. From outside the closure, it’s moon-barking mad and moronically stupid. It’s a classic example of a self-refuting position: hey man, the concept of social construction is, like, a social construct. Deep.

The Individual is nothing; the Collective is everything. Marxists don’t care about you. Individuals are of value only if they further the Revolution. Since morality is also a social construct, and Marxists are pragmatic after their fashion, they believe they are completely justified in lying, manipulating and using you to further the glorious ends. No Marxist sheds a tear thinking about the 100+ million people murdered in the name of Marxism, nor the hundreds of millions more who lived lives of terror and poverty under it. They are making an omelette. Eggs will be broken.

Marxism denies science, unless it can be framed in such a way as to support Marxism. Lysenko. Biology, evolutionary biology and human genetics all say people come in two sexes. All gender study ‘science’ starts with the premises that the problem is oppression and the solution is revolution; therefore, there is no gender theory science: no fair, and no science, assuming your conclusions.

Gender Theory should be rejected because it is simply a flavor of Marxism; Marxism should be rejected because it is evil, anti-science, and denies any morality whatsoever, and because of the 100 million+ defenseless, innocent women, children and men murdered by Marxists. If Naziism is to be condemned because Nazis killed about 12 million innocent people, Marxisms must be condemned even more strongly for the 100+ million they sacrificed to their idiotic ideology.

The critical (ha ha) point: the epistemic closure is 100% Marxist. Marxist dogma demands that the only, as in THE ONLY, source of suffering and pain in this world is oppression. (1) Therefore, the only allowable course of inquiry is: how is this X here explained by oppression? Who is oppressing whom? Next, the only allowable solution under Marxism is revolution: oppression will never cease as long as the Hegemony continues. As one American Politburo member put it: we’re not here to fix the system, we’re here to overthrow it. Finally, Marxism demands that reality be denied in order to save the theory.

Over the last 6-8 years I’ve been looking at this, I’ve noticed a trend on common on-line sources away from owning up to Gender Theory’s status as simply a sub-discipline of Critical Theory. As the Beatles so succinctly put it: If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

People who accept Gender Theory while denying or ignoring its Marxist roots are – according to the Marxists – useful idiots.

3 Forgive me, I’m now about to extensively quote myself:

Freud, the rest of the story:

When Ziggy first started analyzing people, his customers were, naturally, people who could pay for it. Thus, the parade of identified patients were largely the children of wealth and status.

In this parade, Freud found a number of patients who claimed they were being or had been sexually molested. Thus, he came to one of the great turning points in modern psychology. He could believe the patients (his records show that he initially did!) and go to bat for them – and find himself accusing the people who were paying his bills, the people to whose parties and teas he was being invited, of being monsters or, at least, of having monstrous things happening under their noses. It would have most likely ended his career, or at least put it on a less immediately gratifying trajectory.

Or he could ‘discover’ in a flash of Hegelian enlightenment that these patients were merely fantasizing or hallucinating because they were sexually repressed or suffering under an Oedipus complex or just in general obsessed with sex in the deepest darkest corners of their minds. That way, he could refocus what would be really uncomfortable attention from the family and friends of the patient back onto the patient’s own problems. He could still get invited to all the cool parties, build his practice with their help, and get paid.

So, for decades afterward, any number of abused children, when sent to Freudian analysts, were systematically convinced that they were deluding themselves, that their memories were mere fantasy, and that they needed to focus on their own twisted minds. Mom and dad were largely off the hook – the patient may have issues with them, but, alas! we’re all slaves to sexual repression, so what else could one expect?

When this gaslighting was finally exposed, largely in the 60s and 70s, Freudian teachings and theory were of course excoriated from all the pulpits of academia, and his name became an insult and cautionary tale. Just kidding! Nope, his theories had proven far too useful for deflecting and misdirection, so we continue to use his language and understanding to this day.

Similarly, up until that fateful day in 2013, when ‘gender dysphoria’ was slipped into the DSM in the dark of night, responsible therapists, when presented with a child who claimed to be of the opposite sex, would gently poke around a little, to see what else was going on it the kids life. Were they being bullied? Were the boys pestering them for sex? Were daddy and mommy getting along and being kind to them? Did they understand that puberty was hard and confusing, but that people do get through it OK? Those therapists, had they received their training prior to the complete convergence of their field in academia, were aware that 1) the vast majority of kids presenting as dysphoric resolve their issues in favor of their actual sex if given time and support, and 2) that cases where that doesn’t happen tend to very miserable – all the usual problem: addiction, depression, suicide, etc. occur with much higher frequency and severity.

In other words, specifically, the post 2013 words, such careful and compassionate therapists were the hatiest haters and bigots imaginable! They dared to ask questions that might just point back to the ruined lives of these kids, ruined by divorce, abuse, and rootlessness. Under the new theory, even asking questions was hate and bigotry. Just like the victims of Freud, the new heroes of gender theory get to bear their pain alone, while having everyone around them explain everything away – and, desperately seeking relief and reinforced by the adults around them, the kids will embrace it!


‘Gender Affirmation’ transfers all responsibility for the raising and happiness of our children away from the parents and onto ‘society’, which, as a reified abstraction, has no agency: Society doesn’t do things, people do. Instead of asking the hard questions of ourselves and the other people in the child’s life, we can simply affirm the child’s suffering, give it a societal diagnosis, and get on with our wretched lives. The child is thus instructed to blame largely nameless other people for his unhappiness and let moms and dads (in whatever configuration exists this week) skate free. Moms and dads are eager to embrace an ideology that absolves them, that hands them a stick with which to beat down to incessant call of what’s left of their consciences. Sacrificing their kids is nothing new: they’ve been doing it for years through divorce, casual relationships, and the constant betrayal of their own children that such lives entail.

We are all weak human beings, but this is pure evil

  1. In typical Marxist When Prophecy Fails fashion, Marx ‘s original version was that Capital, the reification of Bad Men Making Money, oppressed Workers, little saints all; when that failed to actuate, Lenin broadened oppressors to include all sorts of reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries, which under Stalin ended up including the little children of Ukrainian farmers, who therefore needed to be murdered. But the real breakthrough in providing proper boogiemen to revolt against was made by Gramsci, who imagined a hegemony, whereby all that is wholesome and happy is nothing more than a tool of oppression, we happy, wholesome people are just too stupid to see it. Marxists need never lack for oppressors again!