Is Everyone Really Equal?
Part 3

3,430 words

Part 1, Part 2

Oppression and Power

The introduction reads:

This chapter introduces the concept of power, which transforms group prejudice into oppression. We explain the difference between concepts such as “race prejudice” (which anyone can hold) and “racism,” which only the dominant racial group can impose. The chapter introduces the “ism” terms (e.g., racism, sexism, classism) and explains how these terms allow us to capture the dynamics of prejudice, discrimination, plus structural power at the group level.

You know where this one’s going, right? You got it – the good ole Trotsky Tautology. There are a few hidden axioms built into it; the biggie is to substitute “white people” for “dominant racial group.” Then – presto! – only white people can be “racist,” modus ponens, QED. It still amazes me how these mealy-mouthed leftist weasels can dish out this same old casuistic cow cookie as if they were unveiling a stone tablet from Mount Sinai. Even a reasonably clever ten year old can see right through that. It’s one thing if NPCs on Tumblr parrot that disingenuous line, but professors should know better unless they’re pushing an agenda or have a curious gap in their critical thinking skills.

I’ll further add that the Trotsky Tautology creates a double standard whereby whites are uniquely guilty of “racism,” long ago defined as the ultimate cardinal sin. If you believe what Robin DiAngelo and some others say, then we all are guilty no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Meanwhile, racially motivated bad behavior by non-whites, no matter how egregious or violent, is judged by a lesser standard. Often the usual “Rousseau up to 11” narratives add yet another layer of responsibility deflection. Hey, maybe the poor dears had a rough childhood, right? In fact, they were merely lashing out justifiably after how beastly we’ve been to them! It’s not like they have minds of their own and can be held accountable for their actions.

To be sure, the book is a little more eclectic about it. The example illustrates a man trying to get hired as an elementary school teacher. Discriminating against him for being male is not oppressive, but it is oppressive to discriminate against him because he might be gay. If this seems mysterious, just keep grappling; “In this book we are providing a critical theory framework that is different from the one mainstream socialization provides; a critical theory framework is based on solid scholarship, study, and practice.” Next up is another one of those special definitions:

Oppression: The prejudice and discrimination of one social group against another, backed by institutional power. Oppression occurs when one group is able to enforce its prejudice and discrimination throughout society because it controls the institutions. Oppression occurs at the group or macro level, and goes well beyond individuals. Sexism, racism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism are specific forms of oppression.

I know where this is going, of course. Still, the irony is almost delicious, considering the current racial and sociopolitical priorities represented by The System, Woke Capital, the MSM, and other powerful forces. These are headed up by Zionists and limousine leftist WASP renegades who suck up to them. I hardly need to explain that without these creatures calling the shots, we wouldn’t have full-spectrum agitprop, corporate virtue signaling, and six decades of population replacement migration. Who the hell thinks that these “elites” are concerned with the well-being of normal white people? I suppose I’m just not grappling hard enough yet. . .

Of course, someone would reach entirely different conclusions by imagining The Establishment as something completely different. Maybe they think of the ruling class as capitalist running dogs sipping cognac in their klavern after a cross lighting, who then connive about how best to keep the proletariat divided by race, birth-assigned gender, and personal lifestyle choices. Operating from a set of assumptions like that, the wokesters won’t think of Affirmative Action as a corrupt racial spoils system giving preferential treatment to underqualified minorities, but rather as a benevolent “goal system.” Then this:

The example of women’s suffrage (gaining the right to vote) in the United States and Canada illustrates several distinguishing features of oppression. Women of course played a primary role in the struggle for suffrage; they had to organize and fight to gain the vote. Yet ultimately, the ability to grant women suffrage rested in the hands of men; women could not grant themselves the right to vote because they did not hold institutional power. Only men could actually grant suffrage to women because only men held the institutional positions of power necessary to do so. Hence, while both groups could be prejudiced against the other, men’s prejudice took on a much more powerful and all-encompassing form.

Cool deal! Since the 19th Amendment got passed a century ago, this means feminists will stop kvetching about The Patriarchy and we finally can get around to celebrating the golden peace between men and women, right? Oh, now wait a minute – what’s a woman again? For the longest time, I thought I knew. . .

After that is a discussion of social stratification, including a table of devil words ending in ‑ism. It’s possible to belong to both designated oppressor groups and designated victim groups. (I’m nearly everything they hate.) There’s more of the basic “intersectionality 101” discussion. Social class figures into the picture, a bit unusual with cultural Marxists these days. Earlier leftists often correctly understood that economics is more important than any litany of ‑isms; simply put, life is a shit sandwich, and the more bread you have, the less shit you must eat. For example, Michael Jackson enjoyed a lifestyle that working stiffs scarcely can imagine – great fame, fortune, opulence, and arguably a celebrity pass for certain very unsavory activities – despite having more intersectionality points than Helen Keller’s golf handicap.

More follows in support of the Trotsky Tautology:

From this perspective, “reverse racism” or “reverse sexism” are misnomers and do not exist because racism and sexism (or any form of oppression) refer to power relations that are historic, embedded, and pervasive—they are not fluid and do not flip back and forth; the same groups who have historically held institutional power in the United States and Canada continue to do so.

Again, it all depends on whose ox really is being gored by The Powers That Be. Moreover, another hidden axiom in the Trotsky Tautology is that government force is uniquely harmful. Potentially, it certainly could be; getting sent to the gulag would ruin anyone’s day. However, having to go to the back of the bus, use a separate lunch counter, or ride the Jim Crow rail car is an aggravation at worst – and may I remind our leftist friends that this was over by the mid-1960s. It’s far more harmful when a dimwitted lone nut, agitated to madness by these very cultural Marxist oppression narratives, shoots up a subway car in Long Island or runs over grandmothers in Waukesha with an SUV. (In fact, preventing violence is why segregation existed in the first place!) All told, this hidden axiom is similar to the common Libertarian fallacy that something is bad only if the government is doing it to you.

Bolstering the idea of male institutional power in Canada, which makes reverse sexism impossible, the book notes “women constitute 52% of the population,” yet hold considerably less than half of several key positions. Ah, the good old apex fallacy. Quite strangely, when factoids like this come up, there’s no longer any confusion about a woman is.

Portraying the People’s Democratic Republic of Canuckistan as a bastion of male domination shows that cultural Marxists are getting high on their own stash. For one thing, Justin Trudeau is the biggest mangina in the western hemisphere. Since women constitute a narrow majority, how about elect an all-female parliament? Got that covered! Even if they did, “they could not govern outside the rules that men had established.” It’s not too specific about what such rules are objectionable, or why a gynarchic Parliament couldn’t write new fem-centric rules. Neither does the chapter get around to saying how, specifically, the too-male Canadian government is mistreating women. It does compare Canada and America unfavorably with Mexico, which has more female representation. Yes, really.

The chapter drags on interminably, introducing lots of new topics. Still, it’s always the same old shtick, layering on the special pleading with more and more talking points. These are unfalsifiable so long as you buy into their ex cathedra premises of absolute egalitarianism, mechanistic ideas about human behavior, remarkably one-sided interpretations of history, and relentless assumptions of malice or at least unconscious bias. For leftists and the “minoritized” who believe this feigned helplessness guff, it must be quite disempowering to think they’re inescapably hamstrung nine ways from Sunday by all these invisible systems of oppression which even hijacked their minds, and that the racist / sexist / homophobic / transphobic Establishment has a total lock on power.

Understanding Privilege Through Ableism

Here the concept of privilege is introduced. I won’t go into further detail; this one’s been done to death and everyone’s heard it already. Then the book begins discussing the handicapped, and things really go off the rails. In this case, they do indeed have very real limitations, but who’s to blame – God perhaps? It describes shortcomings with accessibility – a building might only have one entrance with a ramp, auditorium seating is unfavorable, etc.

I don’t know how it rolls in Canada, but down south there’s been remarkable progress on accessibility from the 1970s onward. The thing is that nobody hates the handicapped or wants to “oppress” them. Even a mean old Fascist like me simply wishes them the best. If the able-bodied really were out to be a bunch of dicks, there wouldn’t be accessibility accommodations at all. I thought it would be a short chapter, but this drags on and on, even including a bingo square which might’ve come from a Tumblr meme or something.

It’s the Same Old Song

By now, the Blue Pill has become the Blue Suppository. The book has more whoppers aplenty, of course. I’d be happy to continue, but I’m pushing my luck with the word count as it is. I’ve slogged through half of the main body text, so this is as good a stopping point as any. Before we go, I’ll add that while the book dragged on, I began to imagine an unwritten chapter about animal rights. It would begin something like this.

Dogs receive endless discrimination through the hegemonic discourse of anthropocentrism, leading these disadvantaged furballs to internalize the idea that they’re not as equally capable as humans. Backed by the common socially constructed narratives enforced by the power structures of dominant society, this becomes systemic oppression. Evidence for this is that there are so many things humans can do and dogs can’t. (Reference peer-reviewed researchers X, Y, and Zed.) Just to name a few examples, Canadians of Fur aren’t allowed to drive, vote, or open checking accounts, and neither are their American counterparts. Being able to catch tennis balls with their teeth doesn’t make up for this, because reasons. Note that so-called “reverse speciesism,” such as the canine idea that mailmen are delicious, doesn’t actually exist; since they’re not the dominant species, it doesn’t hurt when they bite. All the doting and spoiling which dogs receive from their owners – terminology dating back to slavery – merely reinforces their subservient status and keeps them from assuming their rightful status as four-legged citizens. It’s all so unfair, eh?

I ran that one by my pit bull. She was more interested in my dinner. Bitch, please!

Conclusion

Robin DiAngelo’s profoundly annoying books remind me of a monomaniac who keeps tapping my shoulder during a long bus ride and just won’t shut up about Martians invading Uranus. On the other hand, as dreary as this book was, Özlem Sensoy does seem like a nice person. It’s too bad she got mixed up in cultural Marxism. She believes she’s doing something good. It’s unfortunate that she doesn’t understand how dysfunctional and harmful these toxic leftist narratives from the Ivory Tower are when they’re applied to the real world.

Given Özlem Sensoy’s Turkish background and involvement in Muslim studies, it’s likely that she’s a Muslim herself. (Bringing this up is fair game – positionality, eh?) If she looked closer into her ethnic roots, she’d find that Kemalism is remarkably more sensible than cultural Marxism, which is only good for ideological subversion. Moreover, it’s quite ironic that she’s dishing out propaganda cooked up mostly by fever-brained Zionist radicals. She might want to think about that one, and ask herself what their motives were. Was all that really just out of the goodness of their super big hearts? Like she said, always consider positionality, and the ways someone might stand to gain from the ideas they promote!

She’s capable of putting two and two together about this – after all, she wrote about ideologies and how they become hegemonic. Surely it would come as a shock to realize she’s been peddling someone else’s moonshine, but let’s grapple with that, how about it? Finally, she should ask herself – why continue to be one of (((their))) golems?

Is Everyone Really Equal? is everywhere really awful, but at least it doesn’t dunk the reader headfirst into an ice bath of blame and guilt. This might be because the book’s target audience is acolytes already on board with The Agenda. (Ethnomasochism manuals for new converts, however, typically feature a “shock and awe” immersion in emotional manipulation.) Still, that’s about the only good thing I can say for this remarkably dreadful book.

As for the rest – hoo doggie! It presents quite an insider’s view of what’s been going on in collegiate social “sciences” departments. We already know that academia has been used as a bully pulpit for pushing propaganda for a century by now, but this really lays it on thick. The book recalls my introduction to cultural forensics in Deplorable Diatribes:

It’s rare to find a statement from the usual suspects honestly describing their real goals in neat bullet points and clear language. Leaked documents sometimes fill in the details. Other writings with damaging information aren’t the least bit secret, but neither are they publicized outside of a restricted target audience. This is “security by obscurity”. Things like that aren’t meant for public consumption. If everyone knew, it would spoil the whole game!

For instance, party platforms are promotional materials to generate public interest. On the other hand, fully candid discussions about their praxis (operating methods), objectives, and views are for their comrades. It’s there if you know where to look for it, but it’s not shouted from the rooftops. Some documents get popular with activists while the general public has little awareness about that sort of stuff even existing.

In light of that, if you want a candid confession about what gets taught to future teachers, Is Everyone Really Equal? is a hum-dinger, if you can stand a long slog through the text. Other than that, it’s only been fourteen years since the first publication, aging well enough since then. Therefore it also makes for an outline of contemporary Space Lizard propaganda from an acolyte’s perspective.

What’s most remarkable is the velvet-fisted academic authoritarianism in which wise experts singing from the same radical leftist hymnal claim a monopoly on the truth, or at least the last word on “socially constructed knowledge.” Information control is a necessity when they’re peddling a vast tapestry of make-believe that can’t stand up to an honest debate. Naturally, they’ve cooked up an arsenal of talking points, pat answers, and tautologies all pointing toward their predetermined conclusions. Well, so much for the university system’s hallowed traditions of scholarly debate, free inquiry, and the Socratic method! Moreover, science that can’t be questioned is propaganda. I can imagine cultural Marxist professors as inquisitors in their past lives. “Your uninformed opinion and so-called observations certainly do not supersede the Holy See’s doctrinal magisterium. Consider this the final warning about spreading your preposterous error and heresy, Mr. Galileo.”

All the talk about ex cathedra academic certitude seems incongruous. After all, it was shown that even longstanding hard science – what is a planet, for example – can be overturned merely by a redefinition, no landmark discovery required. The former official understanding suddenly falls into disrepute, along with any holdouts. Meanwhile, the latest make-believe from gender studies departments supersedes key principles in the real science of biology. Other former fringe positions hold sway in the Ivory Tower, the usual “pretend hard enough and it becomes true” mental manustupration. Whenever something collides with reality, the politically correct priesthood “wins.”

Whether we like it or not, academia is a small world, fashions come and go, politics is an inescapable pressure, and taboos are ideological tripwires that can ruin someone’s scholarly reputation. If not for the (((Franz Boaz))) cult, the (((Frankfurt School’s))) pack of Communist goblins, and all the other pinko professors since then, the consensus would be entirely different. The authors’ ideology wouldn’t carry academic imprimatur or be seen as serious scholarship; “social justice” rightfully would be a membership card for the tinfoil hat club.

As the story goes, not only is political indoctrination a major part of education, they’re duty-bound. It’s as if these activists pretending to be teachers think that’s why Heavenly Father put them on Earth. It works too; the book states plainly that young activists get influenced by leftist theoreticians whose writings they encounter in college curricula. Taxpayer money supports this in numerous government-endowed universities, and newly-minted teachers bring their ideology to captive audiences in public K‑12 schools.

Just imagine what it’s like for students whose teachers were programmed with this stuff and think that indoctrinating the kiddos is doing the Lord’s work. The students get buried under a heap of fast talk, tautologies, hidden axioms, highly selective narratives, word games upon word games and so forth – all by instructors who are supposed to be trusted authority figures. To me, it seems pretty close to psychological abuse for woke teachers to muddy the waters with a tangled web of propaganda, sling buckets of blame, and dish out loads of unearned guilt. It takes a lot to think one’s way out of that, especially for impressionable children! I resisted that stuff in college, but saw some others start getting their minds reprogrammed in just a few months. Their only hope is to get sufficiently familiar with the real world and put Occam’s Razor to use.

Now riddle me this: if the leftist worldview really were self-evidently true, then couldn’t they skip the heavy-handed indoctrination and teach some critical thinking skills instead? Then students would observe the world around them, draw obvious conclusions, and see that leftist ideology is correct. They’d take the Blue Pill all by themselves; no need to shove it down their throats. The teachers wouldn’t have to convince them that up is down, left is right, and right is sideways, now would they?

Finally, the title Is Everyone Really Equal? poses a question, and without reading another word, I already knew the answer: “Of course not!” The corollary would go something like: “You thought you were living in a fair society, did you? Beneath the illusory surface is a morass of injustice. There is no real equality without equality of results.” I’ve heard this stuff so many times already that I can fill in the rest: “Even if you treat everyone as equals, you’re entangled within invisible systems of oppression. Although nothing you do will ever be enough, your only way out of being a collaborator is to enlist as a Social Justice Warrior. Pursue your duty diligently.” As this spiel goes on, imagine The Penguin from the Batman franchise twirling his dorky umbrella to hypnotize you.

The problem with absolute egalitarianism is that whether we like it or not, Mother Nature doesn’t make individuals equal, and neither does She make groups equal. Those who don’t like it can complain to either their preferred deity or the forces of evolution. Race is real. Men and women differ physiologically and psychologically, and that’s a good thing. Alternative lifestyles and nontraditional living arrangements typically have differing outcomes than ordinary nuclear families. Therefore, any concept beyond the Boomer-era ideal of equality under the law is a mirage. To get equality of results, countless thumbs must be placed on the scales of ability, Harrison Bergeron style. This, of course, negates equality under the law – which, by the way, only works properly in a society comprised of compatible populations. So it’s true: everyone is not really equal, and I don’t care.