We all recognize that we live in a time and social environment where the norms are particularly incoherent and contradictory.

This of course can be the result of nothing less than the same feature in individuals being projected large on the social stage.

In this post truth mileau it makes sense not only to categorize and document the intellectual origins, threads, and manifestations of the anti-truth impulse and ideology as James Lindsay et al have so valuably done, but to take a look at the organic or psychological impulse behind it, and to ask what kind of person generates such a preference, or reflexively, results from, the embrace of such a value system.

Jon Haidt has observed we are a post honor culture civilization, and now in a state transitioning from the replacement dignity culture, to a furter stage victimhood (confering privilege) culture.

The question that naturally occurs is not only how much of this impulse is traceable to Marxian ideology, but also how much to feminism; and whether at base, these two ideologies share certain presuppositions that inevitably lead, in their concern with the compassionate distribution of physical and psychological satisfactions and social esteem, to a war with truth.

And to be brutal about it, one might ask the provocative questions: “Do women have honor? And if they do, is it in the same way men have, or once had, it?”

(The women in my family and life of course do have honor. What those females the rest of you associate with, do or have, is another matter. LOL)

The answer to the first question is obviously “Yes” some women did and still do according to various conceptions have honor. The second question is not so easy to answer, especially as Haidt definitionally separates personal Honor, from socially ascribed Dignity.

The former concept, i.e. Honor, both enables and holds to account the actions of an individual.: both empowering, or better legitimizing, (even violence in some situations) and imposing liabilities.

Ascribing “Dignity” to all nowadays, when it was once socially gained or earned through honorable behavior, does no such thing.

This is all mixed up with the idea that nature is cruel and unjust ( including the feminist idea of the “tyranny of biology”); with the idea that man creates morality rather than finds it; and with the idea that the proportional return of value received to value produced to a particular individual is not socially equal or fair …

Jordan Peterson famously responded to a question from his audience by mussing out loud about the impact, only 50 years old, on society of women having political power. ( they have had serious DIRECT political influence for over 100 )

He speculates that men and women may have evolved to have different primary social interests. Or survival strategies.

He says that we have not seen this experiment go on long enough to know the result of this influence.

I think that maybe we have.

A repellent idea.

His principal problem is that malevolent and craven hiring managers rule him out, just as a malevolent or craven hotel manager refuses to have him on the premises even though he’s innocent of any crime. Well, there are masses of people who’ve never heard of him and masses of people who are sympathetic to him.

All of which I had seen/read online within weeks of the shooting. Thank you, fellow citizens! That’s pretty much when I turned off the TV and quit reading the three newspapers we subscribed to at that time.

Kinda like most of this Durham stuff—how many years ago did I know much of that???

But the liars give themselves Pulitzers…
Such is the world we live in.

It’s conceivable that Rachel Jeantel was a phony witness who lied her tuchus off on the stand. That would be another indicator that the trial prosecutor, Bernardo de la Rionda, was one unscrupulous piece of work. (Jerilyn Merritt offered that in nearly 40 years of practicing criminal defense law, she’d never encountered a prosecutor whose conduct was so contrary to professional norms). However, her testimony was of scant value to the prosecution and she made a horrible impression. Recordings of Zimmerman’s calls and the calls to the non-emergency dispatcher, the actual eyewitness testimony, photographs of Zimmerman taken at the scene, crime scene photographs, recordings of the 911 calls made by residents, maps of the complex, and the autopsy report on Trayvon Martin were sufficient to establish what happened.