Wilhoit’s Law and Privilegism

Wilhoit’s Law and Privilegism

 

Frank Wilhoit proposed this Law:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages.

Wilhoit’s Law is concise, precise, and exact. It predicts that conservatism is a misnomer, as it does not conserve, except to protect the in-group and bind the out-group. It also predicts that conservatives will be baffled by accusations of hypocrisy, as their destructiveness is consistent with their core proposition. It even predicts that they will use the misnomer ‘conservative’ to describe themselves.

But if ‘conservatism’ is a misnomer, then what should be its true name? I propose ‘Privilegism’. Note that ‘privilege’ = ‘private law’ = law bought and paid for. Other names apply; elitism, tribalism, aristocracy. ‘Privilegism’ has the virtue of stating where the protection and the binding come from: purchased law.

Wilhoit calls out the mega-pages of pseudo-philosophical rationalization. These can be summarized simply; that the in-group is Superior, and hence deserves unbound protection, whereas the out-group is Inferior, hence deserves unprotecting bondage. But this leads to a logical objection, namely:

Why would the superior need protection? If they're superior, then they can protect themselves! Being outnumbered is irrelevant. And why bind the inferior? Their own inferiority binds them!

The logical answer is that the superior protect themselves by means of buying the law. Hence privilege, i.e. private law. But this leads to another problem:

Privilege destroys character.

Call that Kavanaugh’s Law. Being protected but unbound protects and unbinds the inferior traits of the superior. Conversely, unprotected bondage is inherently character-building. It forces the cultural evolution of the inferior to superiority. Therefore the circulation of aristocracies.

But for those who want more than just new masters from a revolution, Wilhoit proposes a single principle to oppose the single principle of what he calls conservatism, and I privilegism. This single anti-conservative anti-privilegist principle is:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

In other words, legal egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism states that the law must protect and bind all or none, equally; but privilegism states that the law must protect some but not all; and bind some but not all, for two separate unequal ‘somes’.

To egalitarianism, justice is blind; to privilegism, justice is bling.

 

Sapir-Whorf Refuted

          Sapir-Whorf Refuted

 

          I have heard claims that there was no word for “blue” in Ancient Greek. This raises the question, following the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, if the Greeks actually experienced the color blue, under that azure Mediterranean sky.

There are many vivid experiences lacking words. Consider your stomach; when there is food in it, you are “full”; when there is no food in it, you are “hungry”. These are fine and short words. Now consider your bladder and your colon. When these are full, you are what? When they are empty, you are what? These feelings are vivid, intimate, urgent and felt by all, but I know no words for them!

My urologist says that the condition of having a full colon is called “tenemus”. That’s a noun, but he doesn’t know a corresponding adjective. Also it refers to the condition, not the feeling.

I propose the following; bladderful, bladdervoid, colonful, colonvoid. Those are the ‘polite’ and abstract words; their ‘rude’ and earthy synonyms are pissful, pissless, shitful, shitless. This 2x2x2 word-cube possesses both mathematical regularity and poetic musicality; I offer it to you for free. Use it in good health.

These words did not exist before now; yet they denote universal experiences. Thus I refute the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

          Comments:

Leslie Fish:

Anyone who heard or read [these words] would know instantly what you meant, and would likely also consider them vulgar, possibly rude, if not obscene.

 

NH:

Good! Then they’re doing their job!

I hope the bladder- and colon- versions will find polite acceptance; but the piss- and shit- versions come more trippingly off the tongue.

Shitful does indeed function as a rude insult; full of shit. So does pissful; full of piss, and vinegar. But then are pissless and shitless compliments? No shit!

This all makes me thoughtful; but now that I’ve told you, I feel thoughtless!

 

 

 

 

On Orthopsychology and Parapsychology

            On Orthopsychology and Parapsychology

 

            My cat Charles can appear to teleport. Once I turned around in my chair to see him coming out of the wall. “I saw that!” I said, and he winked at me. I turned my head and there was Katniss sitting there like she had been there all along. I said, “You’re good!”

             Some friends of mine have observed similar phenomena and concluded that cats are psychic; but to me, a “psychic” power is “parapsychological” -  i.e. one where the practitioner outwits the witness. I define ‘orthopsychology’ as psychology where the investigator is smarter than the subject, ‘parapsychology’ as psychology where the subject is smarter than the investigator. Therefore orthopsychology tends to be Classical; its logic is rationalist and its results are reproducible; whereas parapsychology tends to be Romantic; its logic is surreal and its results are... elusive. “Psychic” powers are “mental” powers, where ‘mental’ comes from the Latin “mentir”, to lie.

             So yes, by that definition, cats are definitely psychic. So are Penn and Teller. But though Penn, Teller and cats are parapsychological to us, they are orthopsychological to themselves. Disillusionment is the price of mastering illusion.