Could this be the end of science? | HBR Talk 220


What if you wanted a level of social influence you didn’t deserve? You know the value of political power, but your ideas have no merits on which to base any persuasive arguments.

You want people to adhere to them anyway. 

How do you get them to do that?

You lie. 

You create a threat-narrative.

Then, you gaslight and demonize people who see through your shit, while threatening dissenters with excommunication from polite society.
In other words, you try to coerce the greater community into submitting itself to your faction’s social control by making everyone afraid to question your moral authority.

Woke ideologues’ political correctness does that on a grand scale. They began with the lie that compassion and accord between disparate social tribes cannot exist without the oversight of an authoritarian elite within their greater population. In other words, you dear listener, have no capacity to grow, as a self-determined conclusion to your own youthful experiences, observations, and reasoning, into a rational, fair-minded, nonviolent and compassionate adult. You cannot get along with your neighbors, much less the greater population in your community, unless you are manipulated or forced by your betters to do so.

Upon that lie is built the threat narrative. We’ve discussed threat narratives before, but to recap, I’ll reference Alison’s threat narrative series (linked in the lowbar because if you haven’t watched those videos you absolutely should.)

In her videos, Alison explains how a threat narrative is constructed by increasing the perception of the target’s agency and ill intent, but decreasing perception of the target’s vulnerability, all while decreasing perception of a the narrative builder’s agency and ill intent and increasing perception of his or her vulnerability. The narrative builder then plays the longsuffering martyr of the target’s malicious behavior. In discussing this, Alison talked about it as a behavior that is not limited to individuals, but can encompass whole groups, even whole populations. In her next video, she went over how these narratives are used to manipulate the target or a target audience into a sense of obligation to appease the narrative builder’s sense of victimhood. In later videos, she went over some of the ways this appeasement can occur, and also some of the ways a threat narrative can be expanded into an excuse for aggression against its target, and she delved into some examples from history, as well as an examination of the gendered threat narrative that feminist dogma uses.

We’ve seen this used to make the concept of male privilege a tool feminists can exploit while agitating for anti-male discriminatory law and policy, as with intimate partner and sexual violence law, as well as family law. In both areas, feminists have attacked due process and standards for evidence by demonizing men, especially fathers, as oppressive pa tria rchs whose intimate partners need a protective advantage written into law; deadbeats and abusers who are undeserving of equal consideration, who owe women an easier pathway to courtroom victory.
  Still, we have science and rational thought on our side, do we not? After all, what is a threat narrative at its base but a fallacious appeal to emotion? Can’t that be countered by presenting accurate statistics, clear logic, and reasonable solutions to social conflicts?

For now, yes… but the ability to rely on objective reality to protect against woke threat narratives is under an attack of its own.

Three guesses what they’re using!
Oh, and the first two don’t count.

Yep – you guessed it: More threat narratives!

Interestingly, as it becomes more widely unpopular to demonize men, progressives have moved a more coded language for their misandry to the forefront: Whiteness Studies. The entire woke dogma on “whiteness” is a complex threat narrative. It begins by establishing power through the “privilege” dialogue. In gender and race studies, the concept of  privilege is intended to amplify the perception of the target’s group’s power, while diminishing the appearance of its vulnerability. Meanwhile, when current or historical events are examined within these academic areas, information is cherry-picked and then falsely framed to amplify and generalize the target group’s appearance of malice, while dimming that of the victim demographics.

This contribution from Critical Race Theory uses the term “Whiteness” where feminist dogma uses Patriarchy, which effectively means “men.” They’ve even given it a vague, nebulous personality instead of a definition, just as feminist dogma does with Patriarchy. This is why, when feminists attribute things to “patriarhcy,” there is no solid argument to make against the attribution, because there is no solid concept to argue against. If you try to define patriarchy or use a feminist-generated definition of patriarchy, you will always be told that what you’ve cited is not “the” feminist definition of the term, that not all feminists define it the same way, and that arguing on that definition doesn’t address the arguments of the feminist you’re talking to, but she will steadfastly refuse to give you her definition so that you can have a rational discussion on the topic. It appears that the concept of whiteness is going to suffer from the same willful ambivalence among its proponents, even as it is used to attack the hard sciences.

The attention of HBR talk has been drawn to one example, published in the American Physical Society’s journal online, titled “Observing whiteness in introductory physics: A case study,” by Amy D. Robertson and W. Tali Hairston. As I described, the concept of whiteness in this paper suffers from the same issues as feminist Patriarchy theory. In one paragraph, they openly admit this, stating, “Within the literature on whiteness, there is not a single, consistent “kind of thing” that whiteness is” and that “Part of the difficulty in characterizing whiteness lies with its having no genuine content other than a culturally manufactured one…” meaning that the concept has no solid basis at all. To get past this, instead of defining whiteness, the arbiters of critical race theory describe it as “a racial frame (which includes bias), an ideology, a social organization, and an identity…”

The writers then state their intentions: 
“…our focus in this analysis is on whiteness as social organization. This choice is not meant to communicate that whiteness as social organization is best for describing whiteness; whiteness is pervasive, insidious, and complex, and it manifests in all of the ways above. We chose whiteness as social organization because we want to show how physics classroom spaces can mirror the structure of whiteness, in moments where race is not an overt topic of conversation and/or events may seem neutral. Drawing on CWS, our belief is that spaces are racialized insofar as they mirror or take up this social organization.”

The writers’ description of whiteness as “pervasive, insidious, and complex” is supplemented by references to “systems of marginalization and oppression” which are “rooted in colonialism.” This is a direct means of drawing the threat narrative; it is simultaneously defined as powerful (high agency) and invulnerable, with open malice and harmful effects. The obvious intent is to socially obligate the current arbiters of this field to surrender their professional environment to the control of political ideologues.

Surely, nothing could go wrong with that! 

Deborah Powney joins us this Thursday to take a look. As we examine this report, keep the following in mind: Woke ideologues use collective guilt and victimhood themes organized into a threat narrative like this as their shield against criticism and as their battering ram against your ability to use observable reality in your defense when they want to enact a hostile takeover of any given social territory. It’s important that we consider the question, what is their goal, and how will it affect the ability of men’s advocates to cite scientific data and conclusions in our advocacy for gender-neutral law and policy?

You can find a link to the stream, running at 7:30PM EST on several platforms, at

Opening Monologue transcript

Want more?

Support the badgers:

Patreon us on patreon:

Subscribe to us on minds

Follow us on twitter!

Join our Facebook group!

Watch us on twitch!

Brian –

Max Derrat –

Hannah –

Prim Reaper –

Karen –

Alison –

Anna –

Mike –

Aydin –

Deborah Powney –

Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather