Thursday, 10 June 2010
The Anglobitch blog is running smoothly, but some changes in my approach are afoot. I intend to write less, maybe once or twice a month, but compensate by giving people something of the highest quality.
Why are there no right wing sociologists? Simply, because sociology is not a science. It is merely arbitrary political opinion dressed in scientific trappings. Since feminism is a branch of sociology, it behoves us as counter-feminists to critically examine this intellectual discipline.
At the time of his death, Professor Hans Eysenck was the most widely cited psychologist in the anglosphere. He was an unusual psychologist, in that his first love was physics. He came to England from Nazi Germany to escape persecution for his beliefs. However, he soon found that the Anglosphere harbored quite enough irrationality of its own, as his brilliant work stressing the innate intellectual differences between people began to attract critical attention.
Eysenck is especially well-known for his classification of personality-types. He divided people into four broad types: Extrovert-Stable, Extrovert-Unstable, Introvert-Stable and Introvert-Unstable. These types are fairly self-apparent in our daily lives, so no surprises there. However, he found that certain types are drawn to particular subjects of study, works of art and political affiliations in markedly predictable ways - and that is where things become really interesting.
Extrovert-Unstable people are, according to Eysenck, more prone to insanity, extremism and authoritarianism than other personality types. Again, this is pretty much what we would expect. However, Eysenck soon found that his intellectual opponents in British universities were typically sociology students, many of whom resorted to threats of violence against him. Further research confirmed his hunch that students drawn to sociology were overwhelmingly Unstable-Extroverts, very seldom Stable-Introverts.
Now, these distinctive sociological ‘markers’ – proneness to extremism, authoritarianism and irrationality – also define feminism. And this should not surprise us. Feminism is a branch of sociology - and, as such, attracts the same Unstable-Extrovert personality type. Indeed, prominent feminists like Greer, Dworkin or Harman all represent this type, and the three 'markers' Eysenck found to be associated with sociology also define feminism. Let us consider this in more detail.
One key characteristic of insanity is a failure to test reality – to let one’s subjective fantasies run unchecked by any objective assessment criteria. This irrational trait clearly defines Anglo-American feminism.
As proof of this, feminism closely inheres to ‘post-modernism’, a counter-cultural academic movement originating in continental European universities, particularly the University of Paris. Sokal and Bricmont, two French scientists, have analysed French post-modern sociology and philosophy in depth, and concluded that most of it is incoherent gibberish. By extension, feminist ‘thought’ takes a severe drubbing at their hands as a farrago of anti-rational drivel. Check out their book, Intellectual Impostures. I can’t recommend this work highly enough.
One of the oddest expressions of feminist ‘anti-rationalism’ is the curious notion that physiological reality is an oppressive ‘social construct’. The oft-stated view that ‘all sex is rape’ is a bizarre example of this position. Sexual intercourse, of course, is no such thing. All male mammals inseminate the female in this manner, from humans to whales, simply because it is physiologically expedient for our species. In short, sexual intercourse is not a social phenomenon, but a purely biological one.
Another example of feminist lunacy I love – and will continue to cite, since it so antagonizes feminists – is anorexia. Feminist ‘scholars’ have claimed anorexia casualties of up to ‘a million’ in the United States alone. Christina Hoff-Sommers has shown that the true figure is a mere 100 casualties a year. Such detachment from reality among feminists is surely indicative of incurable insanity. There are many other examples (Greer’s predilection for drinking menstrual blood, anyone?) but anorexia remains the 'classic'.
So detached from consensus reality is Anglo feminism, indeed, that feminists can no longer engage in rational debate. Their insane insistence that innate physical or biological differences between the sexes are merely ‘social’ is central to this. All reputable scientists now accept that gender differences can be traced to organic factors like brain structure, genes or hormones, and persist unchanged under all social conditions. There are no cultures, for example, where women pay for sex in substantial numbers, simply because women have inherently less interest in sex than men. Were sexuality socially determined, one would expect a far greater repertoire of sexual behaviours than is actually observed. State such facts to any feminist, however, and her only response will be blind rage. This is because feminists, being insane extremists, have no interest in ‘reality’ as such.
Feminazis are called that for good reason. Anglo feminists are obsessed with deploying coercive measures to achieve their destructive and misguided goals.
Recent examples would be VAWA and IMBRA in the States, or Harriet Harman’s rabid opposition to male anonymity in British rape cases. Of course, the overriding Anglo feminist agenda is a puritanical obsession with suppressing all forms of sexual self-expression across the Anglosphere; for rationing sex indirectly maintains their status and power. And in grand authoritarian style, feminism has done everything it can to quash prostitution, porn and other legitimate forms of sexual self-expression.
Indeed, it would be fair to call feminists ‘sexual Nazis’, so clear is their authoritarian agenda in such matters.
Eysenck found that sociology students tended towards extremism. Unlike liberal arts students (Extrovert-Stable) or scientists and engineers (Introvert-Stable), the Extrovert-Unstable personality is powerfully drawn to radical politics. If we consider Anglo-American feminism, it is likewise characterized by rabid extremism. Greer, MacKinnon or Solanas all share this trait. If they were men (and thus endowed with physical courage and advanced organizational skills) they would undoubtedly be successful terrorists.
In practical terms, feminist authoritarian-extremism manifests itself as physical violence against their intellectual opponents. Of course, violence is the default response of those to whom no rational evidence is meaningful (Nazis, Communists, left-liberals and feminists). When Edward O Wilson of Harvard first began to publicly expound the principles of sociobiology, he was physically attacked by campus feminists on several occasions (shades of Eysenck's experience, there: inane slogans like 'Fascist Eysenck has no right to speak' defiled British campuses wherever he lectured). Brute force is the natural refuge of the deranged because, bereft of the ennobling powers of human reason, rational debate is beyond them.
This analysis represents a revolution in men’s studies. Never before has feminism been viewed as merely the conceptual expression of a given personality type. From this tentative analysis, feminism can be readily seen to reflect a complex of mental disorders inhering to the extrovert-unstable personality. Like sociology, feminism lacks reality-testing. Its adherents exhibit both authoritarian tendencies and an impulse towards irrational extremism. Next time you challenge an Anglo-American feminist, remember that her views have no intrinsic validity, being merely the vacuous expressions of a disordered mind.
In short, the chirps of a cricket are far more meaningful.
By the way, to that retarded feminist who emailed me, consider this:
I’d sooner run the bulls at Pamplona with a wooden leg than spend the night with Sarah Jessica Parker.