“There is no liberation to compare with freeing oneself from the illusions and delusions of the age in which one lives.”Terence McKenna
Philosophers tend to be highly influenced by their environment, and can often be found rationalizing instead of critically examining the conventional views of the people around them. But if anything warrants philosophical scrutiny, surely it is our national taboos. As a philosopher of biology, one taboo is of particular interest to me: the taboo on considering the possibility that genes play a role in group differences in psychological traits. So I wrote a paper arguing that, while nothing can be definitively proved, there is strongly suggestive evidence that genes are involved in group differences, and we should stop suppressing and censoring research into this topic.
I submitted the paper to Philosophical Psychology—a respected journal that publishes work on the connection between philosophy and psychology, which at the time was co-edited by Mitchell Herschbach (a philosopher) and Cees van Leeuwen (a psychologist). To my pleasant surprise, I received two positive referee reports along with a request for revisions. After two rounds of review, the paper was accepted and published in the January 2020 issue of the journal.
The paper was accompanied by an Editors’ Note written by van Leeuwen and Herschbach, saying:
The decision to publish an article in Philosophical Psychology is based on criteria of philosophical and scientific merit, rather than ideological conformity… In sum, Cofnas’ paper certainly adopts provocative positions on a host of issues related to race, genetics, and IQ. However, none of these positions are to be excluded from the current scientific and philosophical debates as long as they are backed up with logical argumentation and empirical evidence, and they deserve to be disputed rather than disparaged.
Needless to say, heterodoxy about politically sensitive issues is not always well received in academia, so it was gratifying to see the editors of an important journal taking a stand for free inquiry. “2020 is gearing up to be the best year ever,” I thought to myself.
It didn’t take long for the paper and Editors’ Note to come to the attention of the wokerati on Twitter. Macquarie University philosophy professor Mark Alfano deemed my paper “shit” and announced his plan to “ruin [my] reputation permanently and deservedly.” He started a petition on change.org demanding an “apology, retraction, or resignation (or some combination of these three)” from the journal editors. A number of philosophers—many of whom did not even read the paper—joined the campaign to get it retracted and/or smear me. University of South Carolina professor Justin Weinberg promoted Alfano’s petition on his widely read philosophy blog, Daily Nous. He also published a guest post that falsely and preposterously claimed that I defended “segregation” and “apartheid schemes.”
But the editors of Philosophical Psychology stood firm. Van Leeuwen and Herschbach wrote a statement on Facebook reiterating that the review process had been carried out properly, and declaring, “Efforts to silence unwelcome opinion… are doing a disservice to the community.”
San Diego’s public schools want to be anti-racist, so they’re…abolishing the traditional grading system?
“This is part of our honest reckoning as a school district,” San Diego Unified School District Vice President Richard Barrera told a local NBC affiliate. “If we’re actually going to be an anti-racist school district, we have to confront practices like this that have gone on for years and years.”
District officials evidently believe that the practice of grading students based on their average score is racist, and that an active effort to dismantle racism necessitates a learning environment free of the pressure to turn in assignments on time. As evidence for the urgency of these changes, the district released data showing that minority students received more Ds and Fs than white students: Just 7 percent of whites received failing grades, as opposed to 23 percent of Native Americans, 23 percent of Hispanics, and 20 percent of black students.
Webster’s Dictionary quickly edited the definition of the word “preference” after it was declared by some as an “offensive” term to use when discussing sex.
The dictionary previously added in a definition for “preference” to include “orientation” and “sexual preference,” Steve Krakauer, the executive producer of Megyn Kelly’s podcast, tweeted.
After Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett used the term “sexual preference” Tuesday during confirmation hearings, some, including Democratic Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, claimed that the term is offensive – despite it being used widely. Barrett later apologized, saying she “honestly did not mean any offense or to make any statement by that.”
Shortly after, Webster’s Dictionary sprinted to edit the definition of “preference” in regards to the term “sexual preference,” this time declaring that it is “offensive,” archives of the website suggest.
Whites and non-whites training to be Residential Assistants at the University of Kentucky were segregated according to their race and put through different presentations.
The separate trainings were provided to Young America’s Foundation through the organization’s Campus Bias Tip Line, which included emails and documents about the training. White RAs were sent to a “White Accountability Space” where they were given a document that listed 41 “common racist behaviors and attitudes of white people.”
Number one on the list states that white people “believe they have ‘earned’ what they have, rather than acknowledge the extensive white privilege and unearned advantages they receive” and “believe that if people of color just worked harder …” The list also includes claims that white people don’t “notice the daily indignities that people of color experience; deny them and rationalize them away with PLEs (perfectly logical explanations),” “resent taking direction from a person of color,” and tend to ask “people of color to repeat what they have said.”
Brandon Colbert from the university’s Bias Incident Support Services offered a presentation for the training allegedly talking about “microaggressions and microinvalidations in the workplace and the harm that they cause.”
That’s because just 2 days after Yelp’s announcement, ANTIFA has already starting compiling the names of businesses that it wants to submit to Yelp and put out of business.
As if throwing rocks through their windows and stealing from them wasn’t enough.
The list is being prepared by the same ANTIFA group is that “responsible for organizing the violent Portland riots,” according to the Post Millennial. In fact, Tweets from the group compiling the data suggests that ANTIFA members submit “non-friendly” businesses, “AKA any company that’s hanging blue lives garbage in their store or anything else that’s anti the BLM movement”.
So, in essence, Black Lives Matter is now being granted the power to shut down whatever businesses it doesn’t like. And remember, this is supposed to be the anti-fascist group.
In the replies to the @SafePDXProtest tweet asking for names (the account is locked) one user reported Brothers Cannabis Dispensary for “pro-cop sh*t in the windows.” The dispensary hilariously replied to the user, telling them they were a minority owned business and that the “pro-cop” stuff in the windows was nothing more than a Portland Police Alarm permit.
Wokeism aims to remake American constitutionalism root and branch, to transform economics, politics, education, and other institutions and practices. The free and equal individual under the rule of law will be replaced with monolithic voices, united by perceived oppression, who demand a mutating law and politics that reward their grievances with punishments against alleged oppressors and redistributed resources for supposed “victims.”
The first thesis of wokeism is that persons are reducible to their affiliated identity: above all, race or gender. In this view, we understand ourselves solely through these prisms and we apply that understanding to others and to institutions.
The second thesis is that no person, no idea, and no historical account can be understood by independent human reason unfiltered by race, gender, and stories of interlocking oppression, or, as the case may be, by the acts of oppression one has shared in as a member of the dominant group. Everything comes to us and is either understood or projected by us through our racial or gender identity.
The third thesis is that those who have identities that can be grouped under “persons of color” or LGBTQ possess greater authority to speak — owing to the various oppressions they have experienced and the cosmic redress required for justice and liberation — than oppressor groups in almost every sphere.
America’s national DNA, according to the New York Times’ 1619 Project — wokeism’s anti-American document par excellence — has been encoded with slavery and anti-black racism. Indeed, America left the British Empire for the purposes of retaining the slavery regime, the project’s lead author Nikole Hannah-Jones proclaims (against historical evidence). White males stand as the grand artificer of this oppression, which has been transmitted throughout American history, informing our constitutional documents, politics, and social structures.