October 31, 2015 § Leave a comment
Somebody in a comment somewhere said that “socialism = debt.”
Capitalism = private debt, socialism = public debt. Private consumer spending is 2/3rds economic growth in most western economies so… you lose, unless you want to explain how people can generate aggregate demand necessary for growth in an economy in which income increasingly services debt to the exclusion of everything else.
Libertarian free trade cultism destroyed in two graphs:
October 28, 2015 § Leave a comment
The irony of all this is that if you drop Marx into it, you can easily cleave the left’s critique of capitalism from the SJW bullshit, since Marx was arguing that our underlying economic circumstance is what produces culture, rather than culture producing our economic circumstance.
What Kevin and other SJW identity politics types are arguing is that culture dictates our economic circumstance, rather than the other way around. This actually puts people like Kevin on the same side of the debate as right wing religious conservatives, contra Marx. That is why they think “education,” (i.e. shaming and persecution politics) and all the rest of it will stamp out racism just as surely as religious conservatives believe that faith-based education will stamp out sin. It’s just a left wing moral paternalism and forced conformity which is really not so different than the right wing religious version of it.
SJWs, like religious conservatives, believe that history produces bad outcomes, like racism, because of mean and evil people who do evil or stupid shit. They never ask *why* people believe those things or what experiences of material and economic reality would produce those beliefs.
By contrast, the Marxist simply looks at the underlying economic reality and reasons that racism persists because of the way economic competition divides people socially. It makes no difference if people are divided into racial groups, genders, nationalities, religious affiliations, etc., because some workers will blame other workers for the failure of the system, if it should fail, and in doing so will insulate the owners of capital from the prospect of class revolt from that other group of workers who blames the owners of capital instead. So German workers blame Jews rather than the industrialists and conservatives when the bottom falls out just as American racists blame welfare loafing blacks and immigrants rather than Goldman Sachs, as if a banker or a capitalist had to be Jewish to rip you off or as if you had to be Guatemalan or Mexican to want to flee poverty for opportunity.
So that’s why racism develops and persists. Nobody needs to design it or even understand it for it to develop, since you can find some version of this underlying social dynamic in virtually any society. There needn’t be any Illuminati or Bilderbergs behind the scenes to bring about this extremely typical outcome. It will arise on its own as a matter of spontaneous order, just like any price in a market, because it is chosen by nobody if it emerges out of the interactions between people.
Those who own capital will need to find common cause with some element of the lower class if they face the real prospect of revolt. As for the lower class which competes with itself for jobs, resources, social status, and so on, it will always segregate into different groups based on whatever arbitrary criteria because people depend on culture and norms to know how to behave around one another. Lacking any other recourse, they always flock to people who seem to be most like themselves because they know nothing else.
One element of the working class will identify with the values of their employers, or the ruling class, and sees itself as the aspiring ruling class, the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” while the other element of the working class rejects the value system of the ruling class and asserts its own values which are particular to its experience. There’s really nothing mysterious about it. How else would it work?
The former group become fascists, vigilantes, religious conservatives, right wing hardliners who complain about immigrants taking their jobs while opposing attempts to unionize the shop, the latter group becomes socialists, communists, reformers, non-conformists, people who try to unionize the factory which can no longer pay people enough to live on. The former group says “Man up and work harder, you whining losers, and maybe you’d win the game,” the latter group says “this game is rigged, you fucking idiots, there’s no way to win and in the end we all lose.”
As for the ruling class, it merely tries to find legitimacy by finding common cause with whatever element of the lower classes are willing to support it, usually because it is also divided and fighting with itself, with one faction looking to find common cause with the lower class which it can wield against the other. There’s no evil puppet masters pulling the strings. It’s not even clear if the ruling class recognizes that it is bullshitting whatever element of the lower class it is courting ideologically, since many of them may actually come to believe their own bullshit and rationalizations. What difference does it make anyway?
The divide and conquer scheme need not be a scheme at all. There simply isn’t any other way for this political economy to develop if the system should cease to work for the majority of its participants and instead produces the political will to revise the power structure or its existing class hierarchy. It’s the same reason that the European colonials could control Rwanda by playing the Hutus and Tutsis against one another. The same reason Britain could control N. Ireland by playing Scottish immigrants against the Native Irish. The same reason we all segregate ourselves into alphas and betas, come to think of it.
In colonial Virginia, playing black against white after Bacon’s Rebellion was the whole reason that the special legal designation of blacks came to exist in the first place. Before Bacon’s Rebellion, which united both blacks and whites against Virginia landowners, blacks could own slaves and property, they could marry whites and so on. After the rebellion, the ruling class responded by lifting poor whites above poor blacks on the class totem and thereby insulating themselves from the prospect of class revolt in a system that increasingly came to rely almost exclusively on black slave labor. In the event of a slave revolt, they could surely count on all the working class white aspiring slaveholders to defend them just as surely as David Koch can count on lower working class whites in 21st century America to vote their own benefits and workplace protections away.
The class war is always neutralized by being recast as a cultural, national, religious, or racial war. We could go on and on and on with historical examples of the same phenomenon if we were so inclined. The bottom line here is simply that racism in colonial Virginia, as elsewhere, had less to do with culture and belief systems but more to do with the underlying condition in which people adopt those belief systems.
Now consider the difference between this Marxist view and what SJWs are arguing: The SJWs aren’t looking at the underlying context or structural origin of racism. On the contrary, they’ve identified the “cis hetero patriarchy” and “white supremacy” as the culprits. They’re blaming belief systems themselves, not asking what underlying context would produce such beliefs.
Why would anybody adopt such a belief system? Go ahead and ask SJWs. They have no idea. I guess because cis hetero white men are mean and evil. We just need to “educate” them and the problem will be solved. This is why they’re so concerned with policing language, pronouns, shaming, demonizing, excluding, and so on. The SJW critique of the existing society is exclusively a moral one. In a recent video by marinashutup, for instance, she explains that “racial prejudice causes injustice.” In reality, however, it’s already existing structural economic and institutional injustice which produces prejudice as a means of explaining that injustice, either to legitimize it or legitimize resistance to it.
Really think about how stupid this view is. If we were to interpret history this way, we would have to conlcude that Europeans bought African slaves because they were mean, evil, or were told to do it by a mystical holy book; what is more likely, however, is that they did it because they needed cheap labor and the Africans were selling slaves. The culture, religious, moral, and ideological justifications for it came after the fact. In other words, economic and material reality gives rise to cultural reality, not the other way around.
People like Kevin don’t speak for the left and they are actually arguing the opposite of what the actual Marxist left argues. They’re a product of a dying anticommunist and liberal 20th century left wing consensus that turned a blind eye to structural causes for racism, sexism, etc. in order to avoid criticism of capitalism.
Here’s an interview with Leah Gordon, an academic who recently wrote a book about this very phenomenon in 20th century Cold War social science. She calls it “racial individualism.”
SJWs are not Marxists. Their politics isn’t “Marxist” or even on a continuum with Marxism, socialism, or communism, but is actually just the moral paternalism that originates with 20th century bourgeois white women’s understanding of the world. It’s mommy politics, a big part of the reason why we’re still fighting the drug war to keep little Timmy off drugs so that he doesn’t become a burnout like “those people,” y’know, the “losers.” It’s why we’re periodically trying to ban pornography or put labels on records with explicit lyrics or why feminists morality crusaders, who are really just the progeny of yesterday’s temperance movement, so often find themselves on the same side of debates as religious conservatives and other self-appointed saviors who promise to protect society from itself.
People forget that the “soccer mom” democratic left in the United States is still considered “the left.” It’s just the female half of the blue dog left. They’re basically just conservatives who support unions (sometimes) and their way of thinking about the world is, for all practical purposes, identical to their right wing social conservative counterparts. It’s based on fear of the other, not understanding or solidarity; on the inclination to coerce the imaginary bad guys, not the inclination to question power structures which coerce others. That’s the real origin of what we’re calling feminism, not Horkheimer and Marcuse. The modern feminist left carries not the torch that belongs to the cultural Marxist (or any Marxist), but the one that belongs to the petty, self righteous, authoritarian bourgeois do-gooder.
October 28, 2015 § Leave a comment
Don’t ever apologize to SJWs. Don’t ever back down or give them so much as a centimeter, especially when they mob you. This should be you:
October 25, 2015 § 2 Comments
Women’s embarrassing adolescent and wistful fantasies are not like ours, now are they? Women aren’t fantasizing about swooping into some lonely, downtrodden, and invisible schmuck’s life and throwing him a much-needed life preserver. You’re not Ralph Machio in the Karate Kid or John Cusack standing outside Ione Skye’s window with the proverbial boom box. There’s no Elizabeth Shue who is going to dress your wounds and comfort you after you get your ass beat by the bully or who is going to believe in you while you wax on and off with Mr. Miyagi in preparation for your crowd-pleasing comeback.
All those women you remember from popular entertainment who eventually get panty gravy for the underdog when he finally proves himself were written by men, not women. Men who were mostly dorks, like you. They’re fantasy women concocted by clueless suckers like yourself who projected into the culture idealized women as we would like to believe they are, not women as they actually are. What was a source of hope for you in your early adolescence was only ever destined to become anachronistic “tropes,” predictable targets for the oh-so-clever snark of boring feminist hipsters who couldn’t give a flying fuck about your “man feelz” because they regard your fears, aspirations, insecurities, and very existence as either a dire threat at worst or a joke at best.
In real life, Elizabeth Shue is disgusted, repelled, and embarrassed by your weakness when you get your ass beat or are humiliated by jocks with superior karate kills and she regards your need of her approval and support as an irritating obligation. She isn’t in your corner and supporting you when you’re bested by life’s various villains and bullies, but is instead giving the bully a handjob in the back of the sports car his parents bought him while you take the bus back home where you’ll cry into your pillow like a little bitch. In real life Ione Skye thinks you’re a fucking loser for not having a job or ambition and she’s calling the cops because she thinks you’re a desperate, unattractive stalker if you show up outside her window playing what is a really shitty Peter Gabriel song anyway. She doesn’t appreciate the courage it takes to risk socially, put your head on the chopping block, and give the object of your hope the option to lop it off or to pardon you for the crime of wanting to be with her or wanting her to notice you. At best you’re a story she can laugh about with her moronic friends, an excuse to brag about being stalker worthy, proof that she has the power to exclude and reject needy men whose attention she regards as a particularly funny joke.
Women in real life are not getting hot and bothered at the thought of finding some supplicating and lonely workhorse who will arrange his whole life around them because he’s so starved for attention and so appreciative of the extremely conditional duty sex she doles out as a matter of obligation. Women don’t know or care that you spent most of your life trying to qualify for them or that you’d take a bullet for them if they were in danger. They often have no idea that the guy in their life wants to open the jar or deal with the potentially sexist auto mechanic because they want to feel as if they are needed in some way by a woman, who like most women, can more easily replace him than he can replace her. They would find your little adolescent dreams of The One, the soulmate, who finally sees and appreciates “the real you” because she isn’t “superficial” to be repellent, corny, and worthy of a laugh.
If you’re the average guy and she’s the average girl, rest assured she doesn’t need you the way you need her.
For most of us, women’s attention is valuable because it is hard fought and won or lost, but for them, male attention – your attention – is cheap, abundant, taken for granted, and often an annoyance. What for you was a humiliating rejection which periodically haunts your thinking when you least expect it and forever hobbles your self confidence no matter how hard you try to forget it was for her a minor annoyance, a joke, one that was quickly forgotten five minutes after it occurred. “Man up,” son, nobody gives a shit, least of all her. You can chuck all that adolescent longing and Disney movie bullshit in the trash. None of them are terribly interested in your sensitivity or the little feelz you’re going to confess to them in the middle of the night or in a moment of doubt because you were stupid enough to think that you were allowed to “just be yourself.” They don’t care about the lifetime of longing for the approval of the one girl whose unconditional love you imagined would erase every failure, slight, or humiliation and would inspire in you a devotion so fierce and unyielding that you would gladly spend the rest of your life slaving away to build a life with her and make her happy. She doesn’t care because she was too busy fantasizing about having quasi-rape sex with wealthy and powerful sociopaths in endless variations on the trite bodice ripper “romance” novel that women have been flicking their beans to for generations.
You’re projecting your own desires on to them in the mistaken belief that they’ll be reciprocated, valued, or even recognized for what they are. What you imagine is the happy ending to this unfortunate chapter in your little life narrative – the corny, climactic resolution of the conflict when you finally overcome all odds and find a woman who extends to you the devotion and unconditional love that you yourself are all too ready to give – to her feels like being asked to be somebody’s mother, begrudgingly grant a pity fuck, or slip a five into some desperate wino’s change cup because he cornered her somewhere. That sympathy, empathy, and unconditional love is reserved for her son, if she should have one, not for you.
One wonders what “intimacy” is possible when all that is genuine, authentically-felt, and best in you has to be tucked away and hidden lest you offend her hunter gatherer daddy issues libido and cause her sacred vagina to dry up. You really have to wonder what’s in it for you other than sex, which is hardly worth the perpetual uphill battle you’ll wage to win it or the tremendous and increasing risk it now comes saddled with. What else is she even capable of offering? It’s like a really demanding and shitty minimum wage job. Why would you expend so much energy on winning the affection of somebody so cruel, ignorant, and petty that she isn’t even capable of recognizing you as a human being but instead regards you as a status marker, extra, or prop in the tired and predictable soap opera she calls existence?
You would think it would get old pretending to be the outcome independent, carefree, forever smirking dudebro alpha cad who is just looking to have a good time with a cool chick during the perpetual jam band solo of his awesome life because he’s a winner. What is the fucking point of any of this? There’s nothing fun or fulfilling about it. It’s exhausting, lonely, and depressing dancing like a monkey on a stick for her benefit because she “likes to laugh and have fun” all the time, like she’s a goddamn child and you’re the clown that her parents hired for the princess’s birthday party. It’s ghastly. How can things be like this? How did this even happen?
October 25, 2015 § Leave a comment
I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert on this topic, but so far as I can tell, alpha has no meaning outside of women’s sexual preferences. Alpha is simply the sum of the qualities that most women find sexually attractive, not a mystical force running throughout the social universe that we should attempt to tap into like Luke Skywalker.
It’s an ideal that belongs to women, not to men. It doesn’t begin or end with us, but with women’s biologically rooted sexual preferences. Am I wrong on this count? If so, what male trait or characteristic would make one both alpha and simultaneously unattractive to women? If we can’t think of one, then I think this debate is settled.
Given women’s typical insecurities, lack of imagination, and susceptibility to group-think, as well as the extreme and tyrannical social power they enjoy in their role as the sexual, social, and moral gatekeepers, this idealized and rigid conception of alpha male that they impose tends to be as generic and narrowly focused as it is unattainable for the majority of real world men. So, while I wouldn’t criticize a guy for attempting to achieve this ideal in his personal life in order to get laid or land the best possible mate for an LTR, I would have to ask what it means if this guy can’t make the distinction between his own value system and the one he has adopted for women’s benefit.
If he has no value system that is legitimately his own, then his entire identity has been imposed on him by women’s moronic, daddy-issues riven sexual fantasies. I can’t think of anything more depressing.
I mean, ok, I suppose it’s slightly less depressing than the perpetually aggrieved and hopeless incel conspiracy theorist, but only because the alpha is getting laid and for no other reason. In theory, a soulless automaton who is getting pussy is faring better than the soulless automaton who gets no pussy. But that’s really all I can say for this type of guy, that he’s really just like the incel in that his entire existence is predicated on his relative acceptability to women. So… he’s basically just an incel who gets laid a lot. It’s a horseshoe theory for the SMP.
Let’s get real about it: There isn’t much sense in putting a premium on women’s preferences since the ugly truth is that they are generally pretty unimaginative, clueless, venal, petty, small-minded, and self-centered. They don’t do what they do because they are Machiavellian master manipulators, but because they don’t know any better and therefore have a questionable ethical compass. Most of the time they aren’t lying to you, but to themselves while they reason, not rationally, but emotionally. They’re not actually attracted to any real quality or value that men might have, since they’re incapable of recognizing these qualities and discerning their value anyway; what they are attracted to sexually is the social status that such qualities might confer on to a potential mate, to the power, prestige, fame, or infamy it might earn him in a wider society.
Whatever others seem to value, she will value, not because she is conscious of how she makes this determination, but because she rationalizes the shit out of it. A man’s attractiveness to women depends as much on what the society values as it does anything else, since women are really only ever responding to social proof, or the appearance of quality, rather than quality itself. This is why she’ll find you attractive simply because other women appear to find you attractive. She doesn’t care about actual quality, but what others believe to be quality and this is why we can say that behind every great man was a woman, but also can say that behind every genocidal madman and brutal sociopathic despot there was a woman too – usually an enthusiastic harem of them.
It’s women’s fundamental pettiness and inability to evolve beyond the psychology of a catty 14 year old social climber in junior high that compels them to reward men at the top of whatever social pile with sexual attention or affection, not their ability to discern valuable from valueless. The most highly decorated SS officer drops panties just as surely as Gandhi does. Women have been socially excluding heroes, moral paragons, and geniuses since the beginning because they can’t tell the difference and, in truth, don’t care one way or the other. What they care about is riding some guy’s coattails and co-opting the respect or fame he earns in a wider society in the same way that women co-opt and claim for themselves everything men build after the heavy lifting is done.
Do they do this consciously? Of course not. It’s all just rationalized. We should observe what they say, rather than what they do, not because women are liars, but because women obscure their own motivations from themselves. They can’t lie about the truth if they never knew the truth to begin with.
The truth is that they’re attracted to power and social status is power. Power is amoral and may be legitimate or illegitimate, earned or unearned. It makes no difference to women. War criminal Henry Kissinger was a tubby troll and no doubt offered a woman nothing but his pasty belly flab to look at while she was blowing him, but blow him she did, and quite enthusiastically, even as he dumped Agent Orange all over women and children in Vietnam in order to prevent the Vietnamese from achieving independence from Western imperialism. Agent Orange, of course, is the gift that keeps on giving, since it damages DNA and leads to generations of birth defects. To this day, the Vietnamese government is still administering orphanages filled with Agent Orange babies. Here are a few:
How much pussy did this earn Kissinger, one wonders? Think about this the next time you’re working up the courage to sarge and consider that the girl who just turned you down would probably gobble up Kissinger’s nut without him even having to buy her a drink, and not because she didn’t know he was a war criminal, but because he was a war criminal. It’s safe to say that if there is a burden of performance, Kissinger alpha’d the fuck up and shouldered it with ease.
Do you think Gloria Steinem swallowed? Come to think of it, I’m really curious as to how well somebody like Kissinger could have done with the morally righteous, self-important, and ostensibly conscientious young women of the New Left who were protesting him on campuses. Had he bothered, my hunch is that his notch count would have escalated like the body count in his bogus and criminal war. Had he accosted Bernardine Dohrn or Ulrike Meinhoff and whipped out his stubby member and said “top me off, you worthless cooz, then go make me a sandwich,” they probably would have dropped their protest signs and jumped at the chance to slobber on it while less powerful and therefore sexually invisible working class men died overseas for Dupont’s profits. “Power is an aphrodisiac,” as Kissinger explained, and we all know that desire can’t be negotiated. Do we think killing millions for imperialism will make the vaginas of our morally superior women dry up? Think again.
Imagine the archetypal damsel in distress who the black knight and the white knight fight over. Some of us may identify the white knight as the black, some of us the may identify the black knight as the white, but for the damsel, it’s the guy who wins who is always the white knight. The war bride doesn’t care which one wins because she is attracted to power itself, to winning itself, not the qualities which made one knight white and another black. It’s not even clear if she’s capable of discerning those qualities or that she would bother to try even if she were. Desire cannot be negotiated.
You’re not going to be the “good man” and be rewarded for it sexually, emotionally, or in any other way by women. If you cured cancer with your hard fought research and some HB9 appeared on the scene and showered you with attention, you can be certain that the reason she’s doing so is because you’re famous, visible, the center of attention, and more powerful than your competitors in your field, and certainly more powerful than the janitors, cashiers, and unemployed neckbeards of the world who she barely notices anyway. She doesn’t care about you so much as she cares about how being with you makes her look to others. It isn’t the actual value of your research, the cancer patients you cured, or the unique and exceptional qualities that you posses which generate the tingles, because she’d be just as happy to give it up if you’d instead developed an ultra efficient means of committing mass murder and was celebrated publicly as a genius or hero for it. It makes no difference to her for the same reason that most of us will never get groupies sending us love letters like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez.
They’re sexually attracted to power, which is the same as saying they are repelled sexually by weakness, and the exercise of power is often at odds with the basic tenets of a civilized, rational, and decent society. We’re told over and over again that toxic masculinity begins with this intrinsically male desire for dominance, but in truth, how many of us would care about power if we didn’t face the real prospect of powerlessness? And what is the guy who is beat out in the competition if not excluded, invisible, and therefore powerless? It’s women who are obsessed with power, and it’s this obsession which keeps us clawing each other’s eyes out, destroying, and oppressing one another. That’s the real reason men who understand this dynamic on whatever level get irritated when women appear in a male space. It’s because they recognize that the appearance of women will eventually set men against one another just as surely as Anita Sarkeesian’s attention whoring and finger-pointing set men in gaming against one another.
So that’s our predicament in a nutshell: We are pulled in one direction by the dictates of conscience and civility on the one hand and by women’s absurd hunter gatherer libidos which crave male power on the other. That’s the double bind which created both red and blue pill and it’s the whole reason anybody was confused about this in the first place. The blue pill was a lie but we were all lied to for pretty good reasons. Had contraception, consumer society’s affluence, and the sexual revolution not pulled the rug out from underneath us, we’d still be playing hero in wars or at jobs which destroy our health while believing ourselves to be worthy of our morally superior women who gave our lives meaning precisely because they inspired the best in us. It’s the holy lie which made our civilization possible.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not too impressed with women’s values. I’m certainly not going to judge myself according to the value system of people who are biologically incapable of recognizing kindness or selflessness as anything other than a vagina-repellent form of weakness. So I’m not going to judge any other guy by the alpha/beta/omega standard. I don’t agree that the proverbial neckbeard in his mother’s basement who has retreated into porn and video games is defective or worthless, not when I think of all the brilliant, creative, heroic, and awesome guys I’ve known who were uniformly ignored, used, resented, and treated like garbage by our lovely and morally superior women. And I disagree that his deluded but hopeful beta workhorse counterpart who slaves away for a woman he mistakenly believes loves him the way he loves her is defective or worthless. I know that his self sacrifice is also his bravery, his own misguided attempt to be alpha. It’s the result of him having cultivated the best within himself and given it over to somebody or something that he mistakenly believed was worthy of it because he was lied to his entire life and fed a steady diet of ready-made excuses and bullshit. I don’t look down on him at all because I recognize that these are the guys who built all this and we owe everything to them.
I don’t look at these guys and exclude them from the “real men” box. We’re all real men. There were never any other kind of men.
What women value has nothing to do with my own values so I see no sense in projecting whatever insecurities I have on to other men who are unable or unwilling to play a game whose rules men don’t typically even understand in the first place. “Alpha,” to the degree any of us are capable of it, should be regarded as an artificial role we play for women’s benefit, no different than putting on a goofy uniform for your retail job. It’s a tacky joke, not a mystical state of social zen. It’s just another burden of performance, another task heaped upon the back of the draft horse, not a holy grail or marker of one’s right to respect or a meaningful social existence. I don’t mind being a little minstrel who dances for a woman’s entertainment in exchange for sex – in that respect it’s like any poorly paid customer service job – but do we at least get a break every once in awhile? Ever? Are we at least allowed to admit to ourselves that the job is bullshit and usually not worth the effort? Can we at least not be forced to play make believe about it?
When I look at myself, I don’t dislike what I see. I don’t believe that changing in a way that would make myself more attractive to women would actually be an improvement if this is what women are attracted to. It would merely be a means to an end. Why should it be anything more than that?
October 24, 2015 § Leave a comment
If professional victimhood and women’s advocacy is a billion dollar industry, gender studies is hardly a “worthless degree.” It is already shaped by market incentives like most other fields of study in the humanities.
A privatized model of education turns academics into lawyers for ideas. They become shills for whoever can promote their career outside of academia. That is why gender studies takes the ideological bent that it does, not because it is cloistered and protected from this or any other market and so it can freely go down the cultural Marxist lunatic rabbit hole without any consequences. It’s quite the opposite: Professional victimhood is where the career opportunities and jobs are for people who study gender. Taking a particular view of gender which would challenge feminist orthodoxy actually puts you outside of an academic mainstream and makes your research or arguments useless to whoever can open career doors for you.
As one of the guests pointed out, all this identity politics bullshit surfaced in the 1970s. That is precisely when the current think-tank-ocracy developed, both on the right and left. In fact, the original think tanks were right wing ones that surfaced to counter the apparent victory of the left in the 1960s. They were attempting to copy the success of the left wing Institute for Policy Studies which pioneered the “teach-in” to drum up opposition to the Vietnam War.
So that’s why feminist stupidity has the currency that it does in academia. Gender studies feminist extremism and advocacy is a product of rational market incentives, not the lack of them. As it turns out, people care about women and will throw money at their supposed issues, as Anita Sarkeesian’s 160 thousand dollar kickstarter bonanza demonstrates. If you want to see an antifeminist academia or somebody taking gender studies and sociology back from the identity politics left, it would have to have a support base outside of academia, since this is what truly determines which schools of thought win out over others, unfortunately.
The point of research is to figure out what is true, not what is most useful or profitable for the researcher or somebody else. What’s true isn’t always going to be what somebody wants to hear or what has immediate financial value. That’s the problem with believing that research – which is the real point of universities – can be beholden to the market and that this will somehow solve everybody’s problems, as if ideas are like brand name sneakers and video game consoles.
October 24, 2015 § Leave a comment
They used the UN as a commercial for their patreons. How long can this possibly go on before the plodding, confused baby boom media and political establishment begins to figure out they’ve been had?
Why isn’t the demonization and dehumanization of men and boys “cyber violence?” Nobody is accusing Zoey Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian of being potential rapists, serial killers, and monsters while trying to get the state to coerce them and criminalize their existence in a country with 25% of the world’s prison population, the overwhelming majority of it male. How is that not “violence” if mean tweets on the internet can be considered violence? You mean to tell me you couldn’t just as plausibly hold a pointless UN hearing on marginalizing and demonizing men for fame and profit?
How strange it is that the cruel and all-pervasive “patriarchy” only seems to care about women’s grievances. Funny how that works.
Keystone Kops for “social justice.” Look at how fucked up and vicious these people are. Imagine if they weren’t so incompetent and constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
Really think about this: Laughing Witch, as somebody pointed out in the comments, claims that thunderf00t has a “hate army,” yet she has no qualms about revealing her real name or the fact that she sent the letter in an attempt to get him fired, jailed, and so on. If she truly believed Thunderf00t commanded a hate army of neo-nazi serial killing maniacs, then why should this outcome be a surprise to her? In the same way, she claims that society doesn’t care about women, yet she fully expected Thunderf00t to be fired because she wrote a letter to his employer explaining that he said mean things to women on the internet. I mean… it’s almost like even social justice warriors don’t even believe their own bullshit.
Oh and take a look at the heroic, selfless hannibalthevictor13, the much-feared anti-misogyny ninja. Surely this brave equality warrior could never be found in his own mother’s basement, since he’s too busy frolicking in the sunshine with the socially-acclimated beautiful people, unlike us woman-hating cretins in the manosphere:
These are the guys accusing you of being an embittered basement dweller whose critical engagement with feminism can be dismissed because you’re just pissed off that women don’t find you attractive. Real talk.
October 20, 2015 § Leave a comment
Society is necessarily a division of labor, and like any division of labor, it requires the specialization of the individual participants in order to function. This makes all those participants dependent on one another, since the jack of all trades is the master of none. It’s “collectivism,” sorry. I don’t know what to tell you, ancap crusader.
So, since thinking is a specialization like any other, if nobody specializes in thinking and comes up with shit that is useful to the rest of society, you get a dumber society that is less able to understand itself or anything else since nobody will be willing or able to do much thinking themselves if they have other shit to do. It’s not that complicated, is it?
Research and teaching are specializations like any other, so just as a mechanic becomes a mechanic by spending all his time learning or applying his trade so that you don’t have to, a researcher who specializes in this or that spends all his time studying and thinking about that one thing so that the rest of us don’t have to. Their job is to think about and study shit all day while your job is to do whatever the fuck it is you do all day. He’s not better than you, you’re not better than him, and both of you need each other, so put the chip on your shoulder away already.
If all goes well, we can make use of that knowledge they come up with. It’s knowledge which we wouldn’t ordinarily have if nobody specialized in studying it because we all would have spent our time doing something else. If we never invest in producing that knowledge, it’s an “opportunity cost,” as the economists say. If nobody is studying things, we will never know the things they would have discovered since we were all too busy repairing cars, filling teeth, working cash registers, paving roads, and so on, and so we will lose whatever potential value it may have had. All of this should go without saying. It should also go without saying that we can’t know the value of knowledge if we don’t yet have that knowledge, and we will never have the fucking knowledge in the first place if we don’t allow people to research shit by investing in that research.
But what about academic feminism and gender studies? Clearly that’s bullshit, right? What value could that possibly have?
The problem with gender studies isn’t that it’s academic and needs market discipline, as if the magical market and tough guy work ethic bullshit is going to solve this and every other problem under the sun, or as if there could be no practical use for a better understanding of gender. The problem with gender studies is the pussy pass, or the fact that we all defer to women or else risk being branded evil doers, rapists, embittered creeps, blah blah ad nauseam.
Everybody has ignored gender studies stupidity for a generation now for the same reason that husbands have been tuning their droning and nagging wives out while murmuring “yes, Dear” since time immemorial. For this reason, feminism has been isolated in an academic ghetto for 40 years where it has fed on its own dogma and veered further and further from reality with nobody there to put the brakes on it. It’s like a backwoods Baptist church with little contact with the rest of the world which has utterly devolved into blubbering, speaking in tongues, dancing with snakes, and waiting for the rapture. They’re completely oblivious to how batshit insane they sound to the rest of us at this point because there is nobody there to tell them any different and to anchor them in reality. As a society, we’ve tuned them out and collectively said “yes, Dear” for decades. That’s the real origin of Gamergate. The evolution of social media has progressed to the point where feminism and its oblivious appeasers in the media finally careened at top speed into reality for the first time. These are the results.
This is a problem for women generally. I mean, browse women’s Okcupid profiles for a bit and consider that the girl who goes on for three incoherent paragraphs about how she like cats and Game of Thrones still gets messages and offers for dates. That’s how low the bar is for women. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? It’s not like she ever has to learn to write effective English or even suspect that nobody gives a ripe fuck about her cats or what television shows she likes in order to have a perfectly respectable career on Okcupid or social life generally. It may never even occur to her at all because there will always be some attention-starved and supplicating sucker who will take the time to message and pander to her regardless if her inability to write makes her sound like a fucking schizophrenic.
Women incentivize douchebaggary and sociopathy among men, but men incentivize female mediocrity. Plenty of women go through life like this without ever developing a personality or character precisely because social rewards are handed to them on a silver platter without any introspection or work required. They’re like child stars. There’s nobody there to tell the empress that she isn’t wearing any clothes because they were all too busy trying to get her phone number. You could even argue that it’s not even their fault, it’s ours.
So feminism is no different. It’s as isolated and ghettoized as that girl on Okcupid who seems like something out of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It’s a ghetto that wouldn’t have developed had it not been so taboo to engage with their ideas as critically as we would in any other area of social science. Everybody knows gender studies is really women’s studies and criticizing women is like hitting a girl. To criticize feminist orthodoxy is to risk being protested, earning contempt and disgust, turning oneself into a pariah, being regarded as a crank, bigot, hater of women, raper of goats, and eater of children. The problem with feminist academia isn’t too much academic freedom, but the complete lack of it.
The answer isn’t to do away with academia or the humanities or turn universities into Walmart, as if making academics beholden to the market will better enable them to tell us what’s true. Very often, what’s true isn’t what we want to hear or what will earn the academic a fat bonus. Truth isn’t a commodity. Money can’t compel good research or creative thinking, only curiosity, academic freedom, and the resources to chase inspiration can.
Financial incentives and disincentives do not produce the truth, but professional shills, sophists, and lawyers for ideas who will argue whatever their paymasters want to hear and make, as the ancient Greeks used to say, “the weaker argument seem as if it is the stronger.” Look at the economist Glenn Hubbard. He’s never been right about anything but he says what people who can promote his career want to hear, so he can bank on research grants, having his “research” published, or being invited to serve as an economic adviser in the cabinets of potential presidential candidates like Mitt Romney. This was the whole point of tenure in the first place, to insulate academia from financial or career pressure which would silence unpopular conclusions and produce paid shills, monied echo chambers, or researchers who only studied what appeared to be financially profitable. And get real, anybody at the top of their field in whatever discipline is rarely there because they care about or even think about money. They are there for love of what they’re studying and would go on studying it long after you’d paid them so much that they never had to worry about money again.
So no, the answer is not to treat research universities as if they are trade schools and to do away with the gender studies or the humanities. The answer to the problem of feminist ideological quackery in gender studies is to introduce new theories into the discipline and challenge their assumptions, not to retreat into a new dark age or turn universities into legal practices for whoever has enough money to hire them.
For all the certainty among intellectually insecure and embittered libertarians and right wingers generally about the fundamental impracticality of gender studies, it seems pretty obvious that such a discipline could probably tell us quite a bit about political economy, how and why power structures develop, or how communities evolve. I don’t think it requires that much imagination to see its potential practical value. Do I really need to belabor the point?
Unfortunately most critics of feminism are coming from the right and they end up buying into a lot of questionable right wing anti-intellectual biases that actually serve to undermine their criticism for anyone who isn’t already on the right themselves. Quite frankly, you sound like fucking idiots. Those biases have as much to do with intellectual cowardice, laziness, and confused and often imaginary class-related grievances than they do anything else, and that’s painfully obvious to everybody outside of your own echo chamber.
It’s this kind of bullshit which actually dooms criticisms of feminism to its own ghetto. Stop worrying about if people think you’re a postmodern hipster or if people with an education think they’re better than you and worry more about what is true. Truth != your feelz.
October 19, 2015 § Leave a comment
How “secular” is Sam Harris? How secular is anybody who believes in the religion of “progress” which justifies imperialism? It’s no different than any other faith and leads to the same medieval result.
It may be entirely possible that, many centuries from now, when historians look back on this thing we call “Western Civilization,” they will see, not what the West wants to believe about itself, but what is actually true about it and its relationship to the world outside of its geographical borders. They will likely note the way that Westerners justified not only the potential destruction of their environment, but the destruction and repression of other peoples through war, the installation and support of client and proxy dictatorships, and other systemic forms of brutality in order to impose their notion of civility and progress on a world that they – like Mr. Harris – regarded as filled with morally and culturally inferior savages.
Death squad terror, secret prisons, dumping depleted uranium on civilians, and defense of torture are not more civilized when the West does it, even if Mr. Harris apparently disagrees. As Mahmood Mamdani points out, the West will justify any atrocity in the name of “progress,” and this is precisely why we should call its pretensions to civility into question. It is precisely this quality which the West shares with the historical monsters it believes it’s defending us from.
Godwin’s Law aside, does Mr. Harris not recognize that the Nazi project of Lebensraum was, in essence, simply an attempt to treat Eastern Europe the way the Western European powers had treated their colonies in the previous century? It was an imperial project like any other, and its ideological justification wasn’t in any relevant sense different than the ones that came before it. It certainly wasn’t much different than the one which justified Manifest Destiny in the United States, at any rate.
Columbia was a symbol of American “progress.” This is how we’re supposed to understand or remember the settler colonialism of the 19th century, even when its architects like John Quincy Adams and Henry Knox regarded it, in retrospect, as a historical crime. Really look at this image and consider if, for any practical purposes, it was even relevant if somebody understood Manifest Destiny in religious or secular terms.
Did Mr. Harris think that the Nazis woke up every morning and put on their tunics without being comforted by the conviction that they were on the side of reason and civility? Did he think they didn’t believe themselves to be the agents of “progress,” the defenders of civilization against the barbarism of morally inferior and degenerate people? It’s not like the bad guys ever know they are the bad guys. As Plato’s Socrates once said, “nobody knowingly does wrong.” Like those who waged the War on Terror or any other war, the Nazis believed their actions were necessary and therefore just. As Himmler said in his Posen speech, his only public reference to the Jews and the Holocaust, “we must destroy these people before they destroy us.”
How different was this moral calculation from the one Harris flirts with in his discussion of Islam and nuclear weapons? I’m not entirely sure that it was unfair of Hedges to make the accusations he made. What other logical conclusion were we supposed to draw from Harris’s argument? If there was some other conclusion, and this wasn’t Harris’s intent at all, is it really so unreasonable to suggest that other people will draw precisely this conclusion and no other?
In Harris’s defense, where his politically correct opponents are concerned, his position is the far stronger one: We should be free to criticize Islam because we should always be free to criticize ideas, regardless of who holds them or where they fall on some ridiculous intersectional matrix of oppression and privilege, but he has yet to demonstrate that his ideas in practice are actually any better than the ones you find on offer in any form of Islam. It’s not clear if Mr. Harris’s crusade for reason which would justify U.S. aggression is any better or worse than a radical Islamic crusade for faith which attempts to establish a new Caliphate.
Does Harris not recognize the religious dimension of earlier versions of his position? It’s basically “white man’s burden,” a kind of messianic moral paternalism which has always been linked to faith-based and religious conceptions of nationalism. It’s irrelevant if you replace “white” with “western” just as surely as it’s irrelevant if you remove the supernatural element from it, since the real world result is identical. It’s the holier-than-thou logic of “humanitarian intervention,” an attempt by the same people to sell the same imperialism to those of us who are rightfully more suspicious of nationalism and jingoism than the Right typically is.
I would not accuse Mr. Harris of racism and nor do I think that he should be on the hook at all times to prove he isn’t a racist just to pay fealty to the mommy politics of the new politically correct inquisitors of the Left, but I do think that he begins with the same set of assumptions that racists very often do, even if he draws conclusions which aren’t necessarily racist. After all, Mr. Harris isn’t an idiot, so he’s well aware that Muslims come in many different racial varieties. For him, I’m absolutely certain, this is not a debate about race at all, but about reason and its relationship to faith in public affairs. The problem is that Mr. Harris doesn’t recognize himself as a person of faith.
The reason Harris doesn’t recognize this is because he has an extremely facile understanding of the political economy of religion. He doesn’t seem to recognize that faith, as a mode of thinking, isn’t confined to institutionalized religion, but is everywhere throughout philosophy, theory, and ideology, apparently even his own.
October 19, 2015 § Leave a comment
The attack on that douchbro yuppie sports bar is classic. Every time I watch it that footage, I want to cheer.
I’m white and I supported the rioters 100% and I’ll support them next time. What is left to do but riot? We have a failing economic and political system and a cynical ruling class that wants to pit poor blacks against poor whites to keep us fighting over stupid shit that doesn’t matter while they rape this country’s working class and criminalize poverty.
There’s no political or peaceful solution. Isn’t that obvious? It’s just going to get worse and worse, just as it has steadily for decades, and all while our ruling class hides behind ideological excuses and crude, transparent divide and conquer schemes while they herd men into private prisons where they can pay them 23 cents an hour to make landfill fodder consumer goods for fortune 500 companies.
All the while your corporate owned media will wail and moan about looters in places like Baltimore in the hopes that we won’t notice that the real looting is on Wall St.
They’ll go on ignoring the declining standard of living and the desperation no matter how bad it gets so long as you keep putting up with it. If they can ignore it, they will, because the longer it goes on, the more the money piles in tax free offshore accounts.
Well rioting is something they can’t ignore, now isn’t it?
So far as I can tell, the only difference between poor whites and blacks is that the blacks aren’t stupid enough to think they’re still on the winning team. If poor whites had a clue, they wouldn’t be blowing a gasket and hurling racial slurs at the television next time, they’d be rioting themselves in solidarity.
I hope people never forget Freddie Gray.
No justice, no peace.