SCIENTISM AND GENDER NULLIFICATION, PART III

     The vermin in the Corporate Media---funded by the same interests as the Academic Mafia---have been ramping up the homo agenda since our last post. That was predictable, really. My suspicion was that all of the hoopla surrounding the trans debutante on Drew Barrymore's show last week was the beginning of an intensive media campaign. Once people get through their heads that the self-appointed 'Cultural Elites' are following a deliberate plan, guessing their next moves isn't difficult sometimes.

    US Today for example, nominated troon State Legislator Leigh Finke as Minnesota's Woman of the Year. Citing the xhe's “tenacity, bravery and leadership” (despite having only served since mid-January), the Media is once again demonstrating how all of their decades of supporting Feminism was nothing but a sham. Yesterday, the settled science was that women were the equal of---if not actually superior to---men; now it tells us that men magically can change their orientation and be superior to women again. Americans on the Left should be careful note here that the NWO crowd has fairly established history of throwing groups and peoples under the bus once they've served their purpose. They should, but they probably won't.

  Meanwhile, the National Hockey League got in the news again. The San Jose Sharks submitted both its players and fans to the humiliation ritual of a 'Pride Night' where the players donned 'rainbow' jerseys. It's probably not surprising that a sports league half-controlled by Tiananmen Trudeau and half-controlled by Wall Street would be a leader in Political Correctness. The Sharks, however, sent out some Twitter-feeds illustrating again the connection between modern Scientism and prehistoric beliefs in magic.

   “The muxe gender is a respected third gender in Zapotec cultures in Oaxaca, Mexico that has existed for centuries. Gunaa are those who were born as men but who identify as women & are attracted to men. The Nguii are those who were born as men and are attracted to other men.” Another read: “The Ninauposkitzipxpe were honored as a third gender in the North Peigan tribe of the Blackfoot Confederacy in northern Montana and Southern Alberta, Canada.”

     So what further proof do we need? If uncivilized and uneducated savages living out in the isolated parts of the world believe in a 'third gender' then obviously it must be so. 

   The whole idea of a 'third gender' is nothing new either. It was actually proposed and debated about a century ago by some radical academics mostly from the Weimar Republic. Mainstream psychology of the period so thoroughly discredited the theory that it had no currency until only recently when Scientific Consensus became available for purchase. Some of what Psychology had to offer as proof against the Third Gender Theory were:

   1. That the need to bond sexually with the opposite sex is an irreducible human instinct like the need to eat or breathe;

   2. Thousands of case studies demonstrating that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria could be cured; and that the patients went on to lead normal lives;

  3. That even while engaged in the homosexual or dysphoric perversion, traditional gender roles were still being played out. Homosexual partners played the role of either a man or a woman in the relationship while dysphorics mimicked femininity.

  4. That as civilizations progress, gender differentiation becomes more; not less, pronounced. 

   In Postmodern Academia, mainstream Psychology has simply been cancelled, its proponents relegated to Dead White Male status. Academia Incorporated uses the utterly laughable excuse that Depth Psychology is unfalsifiable---in spite of the fact most of modern science is based upon theory. Granted, one can do experiments and even invent technologies based on these theories that mostly work; proving that established theories are---generally speaking---part accurate and part falsifiable. For example, we build aircraft based on the laws of Gravity, but we can't explain how a bumblebee flies with its insufficient mass-to-wing ratio. Psychoanalysis had a high cure rate: not 100%, but neither have organ transplants or other complicated medical procedures. To discredit a theory because there are occasional exceptions to it is another trait characteristic of the witch-doctors and less scientifically advanced ages.

   Most schools of psychology in the postmodern era have revived another theory that appeared about a century ago: Behaviorism. Behaviorism holds that there is no such thing as 'mind' as we understand it; but merely the mechanical functioning of body and brain. What we call behavior is merely conditioned reflexes which serve to enhance pleasure and pain. Of course, by this definition, 'pleasure and pain' are likewise relative terms, a product of the environment. 

  Behaviorism largely fell out of favor during the mid-20th Century. One would think that numerous cases of the effects of hallucinogenic drugs alone would show that mind and body are separate entities. That aside, Behaviorism could never explain two other things: abstract reasoning and the origins of supposed 'social conditioning.'

  To explain this point further, if gender attraction is nothing other than an artificial social construct, why does heterosexual attraction exist in the first place? It would seem that---according to this theory---that down throughout the course of human evolution, homosexuality should be mathematically at least as prevalent as heterosexuality. Likewise: in the case of transgenderism, how does it happen that something like 99% of cases involve males? Again, mathematically we should see about an even number of women transitioning to men. 

  Further, how does social conditioning account for standards of attractiveness? Freud demonstrated that in childhood, one's first standards of gender ideation comes from attraction to the parent of the opposite sex. Behaviorists seem to believe that development stops there. But as Piaget, Montessori and others proved that around the ages of 11-13 years, these children begin to develop the adult processes of abstract reasoning. In other words, they begin to apply independent thought to their choices among the opposite sex. Some, in fact, often choose partners from types from the exact opposite of their parents. 

 The practitioners of Scientism seem oblivious a common experience from everyday life: heterosexuals themselves often fall in love with others who do not conform to socially mainstream standards. 

    We all know of cases like this: attractive men and women who choose unattractive mates; people who choose lovers with significant age differences; respectable people choosing partners of very dubious reputations, and so on. The practitioners of Scientism might shudder at these and call them "inappropriate" but, of course, have no problem telling the rest of us that we need to be socially re-programmed to accept homosexuality and transgenderism as normative. This is where they fall into another contradiction between settled sciences: how can we say what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' sexual behavior if social norms are merely a product of our reflexes? One cannot say that a given culture's norms are relative and products of the environment while trying to justify imposing or discouraging other social norms as right or wrong. In the case of the San Jose Sharks, they---if Scientism were consistent---would have just as much as case for declaring 'Sharia Night', making their players wear headscarves, and tweeting about the sexual norms of Saudi Arabia or tribes in Pakistan. 

   Another factor that the Behaviorists all seem to forget is that their own theory of reflexes are based physically on the actions of the central nervous system. Nerves in humans are a form of electrical energy; and everyone knows that electricity is based in the laws of polarity. Hence, in the Stimulus-Response paradigm, the stimulus is a need and the response an action to fulfill it and this is always based in a polarity. When we feel hunger, the sight of a McDonald's billboard stimulates us to eat; a newspaper story about a cannibal would disgust us and cause us to lose our appetite. Likewise when we feel a need for sex, an attractive person of the opposite sex is inviting; someone of the same sex is revolting. Homosexuality and cannibalism are about on the same plane of social development; which, incidentally both tribes mentioned in the NHL tweets were cannibalistic too. So much for their cultural equality. 

   A real question that should arise out of all of this is how we in America can fall for these kinds of delusions? It ought to be obvious to everyone that this push for homo acceptance is agenda-driven, destructive to civilization, and based on nothing but junk science and enforced at the point of a bayonet, but we tend to nod our heads, take more dope, and go with the flow.