Caught Between Two Millstones

Postmodernism cannot reconcile the contradictions it creates.

I’ve said it, but I try not to say it. I do struggle with calling some event “the most important” of our lifetime, because as sure as sunrise, something happens immediately after the sun come up to ratchet the stakes up another few clicks.

The truth is that we are all descendants of King Sisyphus and our lives and times are the boulder we push up the mountain, only to have it roll back down overnight. The next morning, we start all over again, so every day is the most important day of our lives—even more so considering our days are limited and we have no idea when the last day will be.

So, I’m not going to say this WNBA thing is the most important thing of our lives, even though it has taken on the status of a comical farce, the logical trap in which the ladies of the league leadership have found themselves is actually pretty important because it is a fracture that should threaten the entire postmodern progressive permission structure.

Yes, I know effeminate men and masculine women have always existed, and that societies have always made accommodations (or discriminations). The difference today is the cultural forces that exist have decided that if a man says he is a woman, he is, and vice versa. Even this ignores biological reality that males and females are different down to their DNA and no surgery and/or drug and hormone cocktails can change that.

We, like Orwell’s Winston Smith, are being required not to question when a man or woman decides to swap genders (which is just a state of mind that trumps biology we are told), because the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Truth have decreed it so.

So, a man is a woman if he says he is and we are supposed to remove all doubt and just believe all women no matter what, right?

So, what about Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White, both former NBA players, who have declared for the WNBA draft? They say they are women.

Well, it seems the “all” in the “Believe all women” declaration has some exceptions. Enis and Royce aren’t really women because they are 1) not mentally ill, and 2) they are not being honest. Sounds a little “judgey” to me, but there you go.

Some WNBA/trans advocates are proposing in social media that these two women should undergo the drug regimens other trans women have to weaken their male tendencies, so it is fair and to prove they are serious (those advocates are clueless that by doing so, they are confirming that males are stronger and faster than women).

Holy Kurt Vonnegut, Batman! We’re in Harrison Bergeron territory!

And all of a sudden, the WNBA brain trust has adopted Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s position of not being a biologist. They have been meeting to decide not what a woman is, but if they can figure out if defining a woman can be done without contradicting everything they have affirmed.

Weird that reality and anti-reality produces such a contradiction, isn’t it?

So far, their answer is that the WNBA is really just a safe space for black lesbian athletes (and maybe a few trannies) who aren’t really that great at basketball, but really good at demanding that people voluntarily suspend their disbelief and surrender their freedom to criticize the league for the money-losing mediocrity it is while pretending it isn’t. It is a Brave New World!

If you noticed in this essay, I have woven together three classics of literature, Orwell’s 1984, Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, and Huxley’s Brave New World.

I did that because I think these three are the best, most accessible, and most applicable examples of how trying to ignore reality – or being forced to ignore it – is a lot like getting stuck between two giant millstones, one made from hard reality and the other made from progressive postmodern beliefs that are just as hard, but completely irrational and false.

The reality stone resolves contradiction, the postmodern side ignores it, and anyone caught in the middle gets ground to dust.

The endings of the three stories reveal what I see as a fascinating distinction between the three authors in their main characters:

• Orwell’s regime conquers the soul. Winston survives physically but loses himself.

• Vonnegut’s regime simply kills excellence when it appears. Harrison dies instantly after he and his ballerina queen are shot on live TV by the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers.

• Huxley’s regime seduces people into surrendering freedom voluntarily. John Savage cannot live within it, so he destroys himself.

Many readers see Orwell’s world as one ruled by fear, Huxley’s as one ruled by pleasure, and Vonnegut’s as one ruled by enforced mediocrity.

In all three cases, the exceptional individual loses.

The other commonality is that the postmodernist regime wins and the contradictions are sustained and survive, unlike the people who choose reality.

That’s why we cannot let it win or our fate will be the same as those suffered by Winston, Harrison and John.