Field Guide to Clown World, Ch. 1: Social Constructs

Last updated: December 12th 2022

Introduction #

The Church of Woke. The puritanical cult of our day.

Being responsible for most of the Clown in Clown World (as of 2022), the Church manages to be both aesthetically leftist and operationally corporate-fascist. It expands by capturing key parts of the increasingly more interconnected Modern West. It invites itself to every place where humans communicate with each other, and appoints itself Moderator and Tone Police.

We've all dealt with it directly or indirectly. It's the outrage brigade. The sexism patrol. The racism watch. It polices the Online world (eg. Social media), the Entertainment world (which some call "Culture"), and the Sausage Factories (which some call "Education").

As I write, some argue that the cult is floundering. Perhaps even falling. From what I gather, recent "woke" films and TV have been flopping. That's a positive sign. On the other hand, it might just be mutating, scanning Clown World for more "systemic issues" and "social tensions" to exploit, ignite, or straight-up invent. Thus, it's worth trying to understand its operations.

1. How did The Church of Woke gain power in the first place?
2. How has it retained it?

I'm going to skip over the first question, because it's a history question, and I would miss my goal of keeping this short. Instead, I'm gonna leave the history for later chapters, and jump to the second question, so I can give you some practical advice.

So how is the Church retaining its power? Why has it kept growing? What feeds it? Well, aside from the obvious things we all know it feeds on, such as eg. mental illness among the fucsia and blue-haired population of the First World, I can point to one thing that has certainly been feeding it: You!

You are the problem #

Yes, you. Based man. Chad guy. Liver King. MMA King. Greek-statue-as-profile-pic King. Roman-Emperor-quote-in-bio King. Red-pilled King. Carnivore King. All the Kings. And Queens. The Liberty queens and the conservative queens and the based queens and the totally-not-a-fed gun rights queens. The Anti-Woke, so to speak.

I feel physical pain whenever I watch you either waver and run away from the fight, or plunge straight into the Church of Woke's quicksand traps, just because they utter some magic words that have the form "X is a social construct!" where X is something that is, indeed, a social construct.

So let us demystify those words, so that they stop acting like a spell on you.

I could use any social construct, but I'm gonna go with the most commonly brought up: Gender.

Make-up, stockings, and high-heels. #

Imagine we're looking at a human male who is wearing make-up, stockings, and high-heeled shoes. Would you say he's a real man? Going by your tweets, I know you will answer something like:

"Hell no. That's an effeminate. A soy boy. Probs gay tbh."

What if I then showed you the same man grabbing a gun, hopping on a boat and proceeding to go kill a bunch of cops and then becoming a Founding Father of the United States of America?

Yes, I forgot to mention: This example takes place in the 1770s.

Consider the life story of the individuals who were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (of America):

• Nine of the 56 Declaration signers fought and died in the American Revolution.
• Four other of the 56 Declaration signers lost their sons in the Continental Army or had sons who were captured.
• Speaking of children:
  • Jefferson, Thomas: 6 children. (From 1 marriage.)
  • Braxton, Carter: 18 children. (From 2 marriages.)
  • Ellery, William: 16 children. (From 2 marriages.)
  • Clark, Abraham: 10 children. (From 1 marriage.)
  • Hart, John: 13 children. (From 1 marriage.)
• At least a dozen of the 56 Declaration signers had their homes looted and destroyed.

Does any of that sound like the life of an effeminate sissy? Of a pampered princess soy boy? No. They were men. Real manly men who did manly men things.

You know why? Because gender is a social construct.

Gender is a social construct #

I know it disappoints you, but it's true: The men who became the American Founding Fathers were not, in fact:

1. As buff as Liver King (that scammer finally got caught, by the way).
2. Selling ebooks on "How to Become a Real Man by Sunning Your Balls Every Day."

And, as we know, they would often wear high-heeled shoes and stockings and perfume and wigs and make-up.

But it is clear, and you cannot deny, that they were the men of their society. Nothing they did, including wearing make-up, stockings, high-heeled shoes, made them any less manly. Back then.

You know why? Because gender is a social construct.

And, to be sure: Today, in the month of December of 2022, wearing make-up and high-heels and stockings is effeminate, isn't manly, and a Real Man just wouldn't do it.

You know why? Because gender is a social construct.

And, like all social constructs, the idea of Gender can change, and has changed, with the times.

• Stockings and powdered wigs in the 1770s: Part of the "Manly" social construct.
• Stockings and powdered wigs in the 2020s: Not part of the "Manly" social construct.

Already, you should be starting to grasp that the problem is neither that something is a social construct, nor that it can change.

The magic spell that SHOULDN'T work #

The words "...is a Social Construct!" seem to invoke some kind of magic spell that interrupts the normal operation of so many of my based friends.

So let's look at the dictionary definition of "Social Construct". Read the definition, slowly and carefully. Every word matters. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Social construct
noun. formal. : an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.

Let's take this definition apart. It says that a "Social construct" is:

• An "idea"...
  • So, like "Murder is wrong," which is also an idea.
• that "has been created..."
  • Just like "Murder is wrong," which is also an idea that has been "created." (Thank you to whoever created that idea, btw.)
• "and accepted..."
  • Just like "Murder is wrong" has been accepted.
  • Not a minor detail, this bit about having been accepted.
• "by the people..."
  • The people, then.
  • So, not "a dude," not "The Science," not "The Experts," not "A committee of He/Him with PhDs," not even "The Law," but "The People in a Society."
  • Again, just like "Murder is wrong."
• "in a society."
  • Ah, by people in a society. So not by the people outside society.
  • Is a totalitarian dictator "in society"? Or is he "above society"?
  • Is an academic parasite, who contributes nothing to society, "in society"?
  • Is a they/them/it animal-rights vegan thing, that deliberately remains as far from society as possible, to the point of calling for the extinction of the human race, "in society"?
  • It seems to me that there's a lot of people who are not actually part of "the people in a society," so perhaps what they have to say about social constructs, whether positive or negative, is entirely irrelevant.

Now that you comprehend the definition of "social construct," let's proceed to squash some false implications that I can still see creeping around your brain.

"X is a social construct!" – Yes, so? #

Let's read the definition again:

Social construct
noun. formal. : an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.

And let's ask:

• Does the definition imply that social constructs are "not real"?
• Does it imply that they are illusions?
• Does it imply that they are arbitrary?
• Does it imply that they should change, just because they can?
• Does it imply that they are determined by some nutjobs SELF-identifying as stuff?
• Does it imply they are not worth preserving?
• Does it imply you shouldn't fight tooth and nail against technocrats, charlatans, clowns, and/or plain crazies who want to "deconstruct" Social Constructs for their own personal gain?
• Does it give you any reason to conclude that the "Woman" social construct is any more or less "made-up" than "Murder"?

I hope you see that the answer to all of the above questions is "No."

So why the hell have you been losing the plot, hyperventilating, throwing runtime exceptions, denying history, denying reality, whenever a they/them thing tells you gender is a social construct?

Instead of losing your shit and making absurd denials, you should just reply "Yes, so?"

Some options:

• "Yes, gender is a social construct. And says there are two genders. And you don't get to change this."
• "Yes, gender is a social construct. And I'm rejecting your attempt at defining it by fiat. I wipe my ass with both your feelings and you science paper and PhD dissertation on the matter."
• "Yes, 'Woman' is a social construct. And you don't get to redefine it because of some mental illness and confused feelings in you."
• "Yes, 'Child' is a social construct. Why are you bringing this up? What are your real intentions?"
• "Yes, 'Child' is a social construct. And you don't get to overwrite it. And, just in case you are what I think you are, I'm getting the woodchipper up and running."

You get the idea. You're supposed to defend social constructs, not deny that they are social constructs.

If you're referencing Biology, like some morons in "anti-woke" grifter circles do, you've already lost. Their game is, precisely, to reinforce the absurd idea that The Experts get to define social matters. You're falling for it hard.

Final thoughts #

It's called being a conservative, guys.

I'm sorry that many of us in Team Based wanted to be both "Anti-Woke" and fashionably "totally not a conservative." Like everyone else in Clown World, we wanted to have our cake and eat it too.

The conservative preserves those things about society that he or she deems important, right? Well, I can't think of anything more important to preserve than social constructs such as Man, Woman, Child, etc.

"But which social constructs should I preserve? Which of those 'ideas that have been accepted by the people in a society' should I be prepared to defend to the death?"

Ah. Good question. If only there was some kind of traditional thing to guide you on matters of traditional social constructs...

I'm not gonna get into that yet, so let me end with this:

You cannot fight the Church of Woke (or more generally, navigate Clown World) if all that it takes to destroy your social constructs is for some clown to accurately point out that they are social constructs!

That's all for now.

Ads #

While you eagerly wait for the next episode in brilliant this series, check out my latest Death-Thrash EP.

I say it's Death-Thrash, but I was informed that it's "more Progressive Gridcore than anything" by the genre "um-ackshully" neckbeards.

Either way, it's gonna shake your stupid ears and brain.

(Disclaimer: My metal is neither woke nor based. Putting politics in music is cringe and dates it immediately. Stop doing it. Stick to dragons. I'll be sticking to mythology, theology, and Seinfeldesque anecdotes About Nothing.)