The infamous Carl Rove (we shall not bother with an explanatory note, whoever remembers this cowboy and is still interested may look him up) twenty and some years ago articulated the gist of the empire’s swaggering ideology:
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Students of “empire” must wonder indeed how this foolish man, if he is still around, would now comment his erstwhile utterance. The empire in whose name Rove arrogantly spoke a quarter of a century ago lies in shambles; its reality-producing powers seem notably diminished. If the pretentious nincompoop Rove had any notion of history, he would probably acknowledge that the lifespan of his empire had been even shorter than Assyria’s, its ephemeral prototype from antiquity.
The crude vulgarity of Rove’s boasting should not, however, obscure the fact that a similar disdain for reality was articulated before him by Lord Bertrand Russell, by any measure a genuinely substantial figure. In his 1953 treatise “The Impact of Science on Society,” the sophisticated intellectual Russell wrote up a much more polished and cynical version of Rove’s plebeian ranting:
“The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of schoolchildren on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black” (Page 33).
The effort to invert reality and produce just such an unshakable conviction is in full operation in the terminally sick community of nations Dostoevsky charitably referred to as “the precious graveyard,” now known also as the Collective West.
The West’s newest ideological fad is reality inversion. Another way of putting it is that the most compelling expression of fealty to the West’s values consists of vociferously denying the evidence of one’s senses.
Proof abounds. The dogma propagated in February of this year at an “educational” workshop sponsored by Oklahoma State University was that the biological fact that chromosomes determine an individual’s gender is of no significance. It was expected that on, the contrary, the participants should embrace the unshakable conviction that gender, besides being multiple, was also a matter of arbitrary self-determination. Ideology “cancels” facts. Members of the scientific community and students of biology who, in order to pass their exams, until recently considered it advantageous to affirm empirical facts about the role of chromosomes, are henceforth required to recalibrate scientific knowledge, making it conform to ideological criteria. Who can blame readers who used to be citizens of another empire, denounced not long ago as “evil,” if they find such abrupt reversals of officially approved reality uncomfortable, or even traumatising?
The pandemonium triggered at Portland State University when a biologist contended that there were “explicitly anatomical and biological” differences between men and women, and that taking offense at that constitutes “rejection of reality,” richly illustrates the depth of the madness to which the West has descended.
To summarise, the party line now is that it is not objective factors such as chromosomes that determine gender but “one’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or another gender(s) … for transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their own internal sense of gender identity are not the same. Female, woman, and girl and male, man, and boy are also not necessarily linked to each other but are just six common gender identities.” In other words, one “is” the way one “feels” and the feeling need not be anchored in external reality. (See here.)
The notion that men also can get pregnant, which is now very close to sanctification as an obligatory dogma (a Toronto basketball team was forced to issue a grovelling collective apology after its players ignorantly suggested that pregnancy was exclusively the prerogative of women) is but another corollary of the subjectivity of gender creed and of the ideological disqualification of the evidence of our senses. So is the proliferation of “genders,” whose number may vary depending on who one talks to (precise enumeration is still fluid) but which must always be more than two.
On the Isle of Man, in Great Britain, the indoctrination of schoolchildren in this abominable nonsense apparently went a bit too far, unexpectedly arousing the somnolescent parents to furious protest. The local schoolboard invited a drag queen as an authority to lecture students on sexual matters. When one of the youngsters spoke up to refute the drag queen’s contention that there were 73 genders, a scandal erupted. She scolded the naysayer: “You’ve upset me,” and directed the impertinent child to leave. The incident resulted in a petition signed by over 500 parents and now the school board is “investigating.” It is unlikely however that such a small local complication will suffice to derail the agenda.
The vile sexualisation of children with gender rubbish continues apace. Elsewhere in the UK drag shows are put on for infants, with little outcry from parents or perverse and decadent society.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an astute observer whose memory and attention span (unlike of most of his countrymen) exceeds 15 minutes, pointedly asks: “Have you ever wondered about the transgender craze that suddenly was upon us? I went through K-12, 4 years of undergraduate university, and 4 years of graduate school and never heard the issue mentioned. I never knew or heard of anyone who thought they were the opposite sex, or knew a man who wanted to be a woman or a woman who wanted to be a man. As a kid I knew a couple of girls, known as ‘Tom Boys,’ who liked to climb trees and would go off the high dive, but that was the extent of it.”
The curious thing is that nobody knows who dictates these “new reality” standards, nor does anybody in the collective West dare or bother to ask.
If there is any good news in this depressing panorama of civilizational suicide it is the inspiring example of 16-year old Canadian high school student Josh Alexander who, despite his tender age, has proved stubbornly resistant to internalising the unshakable conviction that snow is black. Josh is a student at a “progressive” Catholic school in Ontario which has wasted no time in introducing woke mandates, including transgender bathrooms. To that Josh vigorously objected, arguing insensitively that “there are only two genders,” as attested by both his religious faith (that observable fact, incidentally, was until quite recently espoused by the Catholic Church itself) and the evidence of his senses. Denounced for expressing views “detrimental to the physical and mental well-being” of transgender students, Josh was suspended for his impertinence for the balance of the school year. When he attempted to return to class in disregard of the ban, the 16-year old was arrested. The case is now on appeal in the Canadian province of Ontario.
“I was called a racist, a sexist, a bigot, but I just continued to voice my beliefs and I ended up getting arrested,” the student said. “There are conditions they wanted me to agree to in order to go back to school, but as a Christian I am not going to lie, I am not going to accept the falsehood, and I am not going to go along with the mainstream narrative because it is completely contrary to God’s natural order (2:53 – 3:17 minutes).
Succinctly and well said, indeed.
Who will dispute that if rotting Western Civilisation has any hope of resuscitation and survival at all, its entire fate now rests exclusively in the hands of moral, intelligent, nonconformist and courageous young people like Josh Alexander?