Fisking JuliasGoat

I saw this post come across my facebook feed touting some SJW’s twitter screed.

I couldn’t take it.  I don’t ram cars into crowds of people.  But I have a pen.  And I’m not afraid to use it. 🙂

Listen up. Someone with the Twitter handle @JuliusGoat just dropped one of the best Twitter threads in history, about the white supremacist/Nazi march in Charlottesville

I’ve compiled all of it here for your reading pleasure and education:

Well no, JuilasGoat fan, not exactly.

While very (very!) few people have anything but disgust for white supremists and Nazis, this tirade is really just another re-hashing of the litany of leftist screeds against America and American Culture.  Which, by the way, has no color.  “White culture” is a term leftists came up with to delegitimize western culture.  This is the backdrop against which these damaged people, these Alt-Righter white supremists  are taking the stage.  They are reacting poorly, but directly, to the perpetual 8-track tape looping of this kind of screed of half-truths disguised as facts for the last 40, 50 years.

Since this screed is the same screed directed at America in general, I can only see it as trying to identify anyone who values American Culture as one of these sick punks that could only gather, what, 150-200 people, to some stupid rally that everyone should have ignored in the first place.  These people feed on hate, and counter-protests and news coverage feeds that hate.  They are otherwise universally rejected.

If you want to go back in history to find out where “they” (whom this guy conflates with “we”) … came from, a lot of them were people from Europe basically driven out because of their religous beliefs.  We outlawed that sort of thing here.  We outlawed burning churches and hanging innocent people from trees, too.  Oh, sure, some people still did it, as some people still murder and steal.  But it wasn’t because we “allow” it. We don’t “allow” murder and yet it still happens.  Some people are evil in any population.

Imagine if these people ever faced actual oppression.

Nobody is trying to legislate away their right to marry. Nobody is trying to make them buy insurance to pay for ‘male health care.’ 

Neither were “they”. Somebody *was* trying to legislate away The People’s right to define what they recognize as marriage and not have that definition forced upon them from the top. The proper way to do this would be through discussion and working it out in the culture — and eventually legislation. The legislation kept failing to pass, so they had the courts make the rule by fiat based on a Constitutional amendment that addressed slavery and racism, and whose authors would laugh at the idea that they meant what the courts interpreted today.  Most people are willing to live and let live.  The people who got this ruling do not, and they, in fact, are using it to oppress people who have religious objections to lending their businesses to events they feel it would be wrong for them to lend them to.  And now the same people want us to learn 87 different gender pronouns or be fired.

And people, for what it’s worth — men included, are being forced to pay for “female health care”.

The law never:

Enslaved their great-grandparents
 Robbed their grandparents
 Imprisoned their parents
 Shot them when unarmed

All tragedies when they happened. While it is true that some people’s great grandparents were enslaved and this enslavement was protected by law, the fact of the matter is that very few of our great grandparents owned slaves, many of them were vehemently against it, and that the founders founded this country in the midst of slavery with ideals that demanded its abolition.  A lot of our great grandparents put their lives on the line (and often lost them) to finally rid this country of this sick practice during a period where it was also ending in other (Western) nations.  Of course this practice does still exist in the world today.  Just not in the West.

To have blame laid upon you that you had nothing to do with solely on account of your skin color is racism.  It’s practically the definition of racism.  If you’re really against racism, you should be against all racism.  If not, you’re a racist.

There is no massive effort at the state and local level to disenfranchise them of the vote.

There is no massive effort at any level to disenfranchise anybody of the vote.  This is an invention of the left. Although Democrats’ history of doing just that in the south means they are familiar with how to do it. This probably makes them feel guilty, so they project that guilt on their opponents today. So they strive to make and keep voter fraud easy and undetectable, and accuse anyone who objects of disenfranchising minorities.

There is no history of centuries of bad science devoted to ‘proving’ their intellectual inferiority.

Bad science which virtually nobody buys today, and which was rebuffed by other scientists even while it was going on.

There is no travel ban on them because of their religion. There is no danger for them when they carry dangerous weaponry publicly.

There is no travel ban on people because of their religion.  There is a travel ban for non-Americans coming into the country from a few, but hardly all, and not the largest, middle-eastern countries because they don’t have strong enough governments to support any kind of meaningful vetting process.  There is certainly a strong correlation between these tumultuous countries and their primary religion, but that’s not our fault.  There are 50 Muslim majority countries.  The travel ban applies to 7.  And nobody who is an American Muslim is inhibited by America from travelling anywhere any other American is inhibited to traveling to.  If it is a “Muslim Ban” it is a piss poor excuse for one.

There should be no danger for anyone to carry a dangerous weapon publicly.  There probably is more danger for a colored person doing this than a white person.  This stems from a cultural correlation which could be overcome in a generation or so by assimilation into the mainstream culture rather than the constantly encouraged posturing against it.

Their churches were never burned. Their lawns never decorated with burning crosses. Their ancestors never hung from trees.

You might be surprised to learn that the KKK hated more than black people. When I was a little kid, I lived in terror of the KKK.  I was told they wanted to tar and feather me.  The thought of having burning hot tar applied to me because someone hated my religion … when you’re 8, that’s pretty terrifying.

But we drove the Democrats who did all of this out of office long ago, and would shame and throw anyone who did in jail today, probably wishing we could legally do worse.

Their mothers aren’t being torn away by ICE troopers and sent away forever. They won’t be forced to leave the only country they ever knew.

That’s on the mothers who broke immigration law getting here in the first place and a risk they took coming here improperly. It is sad.  But it is also preventable.  Don’t break the law, and law enforcement won’t come take you away.  Or your kids.

The president has not set up a hotline to report crime committed at their hands.

There are crime hotlines all over the country and have been for a long time. And none of them say “only call if the guy isn’t white”.

They are chanting ‘we will not be replaced.’

Replaced as … what?

Well, you know, these particular people are not particularly deep and I have no room for their ilk.  But … let me ask you….

  • Does a country have a right to decide who they allow to become “one of them”?
    Is it a cultural thing?
  • Does, say, Peru have a right to exclude people who want to become Peruvian?  Why?
  • Has the United States historically had its own culture?
  • Has the United States allowed people from all countries, cultures, races, and creeds to immigrate?
  • What were the implied conditions of that immigration? (hint: read the citizenship pledge).
  • Would Peru have the right to disallow Americans from immigrating to Peru?

The deal is, a culture in a country has a right to self-preservation and self-determination.  When we bring people here from wildly different cultures and do not expect integration into our famous “melting pot” and instead remain more like a salad bowl, we do not have a cohesive culture and in turn become a nation in name only.  It turns out multiculturalism is a lie.  It does not work.  It cannot work.  But promoting the idea as a central goal is a very good way to destroy a culture.  And none of this has a thing to do with race.

I’ll tell you.

Replaced as the only voice in public discussions. Replaced as the only bodies in the public arena. Replaced as the only life that matters.

THIS is ‘white people’ oppression: We used to be the only voice. Now we hold the only microphone.

This “us” and “them” stuff is what divides us. America has been integrating since its inception because of her values, and it is one of the few countries that has had to do this on any kind of scale. Posts like this only serve to keep us divided.  You are a big part of the problem.

THIS is ‘oppression’ of white Christians in this country. Christmas used to be the only holiday acknowledged, now it’s not.

Not even remotely true.  Plus … it’s not only white people who are Christian or who celebrate Christmas.  This obsession over race you have.  It’s not healthy.

Americans have historically adopted holidays and customs from the cultures of immigrants who have assimilated.

I would so love to see these people get all the oppression they insist they receive, just for a year. Just to see.

You’re that hateful, eh?  Besides, if what passes for oppression on the left actually were actually applied to “white Christians”, you would have to admit that it’s pretty rampant.  Most of the stuff brought up in this screed was stamped out by … wait for it … “white Christians” … a long time ago.

Give them a world where you ACTUALLY can’t say Christmas. A world where the name “Geoff” on a resume puts it in the trash.

You mean, like, say, in a lot of Middle Eastern countries?  And we … we are headed in that direction.

Give them a world where they suddenly get a 20% pay cut, and then 70 women every day tell them to smile more.

Ah, the old, thoroughly debunkedWomen make 78% of what men make for the same work.”  It’s not true.  Not even close.

Give them a world where their polo shirt makes people nervous, so they’re kicked off the flight from Pittsburgh to Indianapolis.

How about a world where people assimilate into the culture they adopt or are born into, kind of like the rest of the planet, rather than be encouraged not to and then harbor resentment for not being accepted by the culture they allegedly voluntarily immigrated into?

Give them a world where they inherited nothing but a very real understanding of what oppression really is.

Probably because this is all they’ve been taught by their leftist “betters”, so that they will look to them as children look to parents for protection rather than to take their lives into their own hands and make what they can out of them — the only real path to self-respect and honest respect from others.  Give a man a fish and he eats for a day … and eventually becomes your slave.  Teach him to fish, and he becomes his own man.

Give them a world where if they pulled up on a campus with torches lit and started throwing hands, the cops would punch their eyes out.”

I think we’re misrepresinting what happened in Charlottesville here – which can be excused a little because the media has only given us some of the facts.
according to the cops, there were plenty of people “throwing hands” on both sides, and judging from past Antifa rallies, I’d lay bets it wasn’t even the idiot white supremists who threw the first punches (the linked video shows this). Cops don’t typically do anything until the flaming bottles and bricks start flying.  Or somebody pulls a gun.  Or somebody tries to pull one of the cops’ guns on them.

Today’s SJW is Tomorrow’s Obergruppenfuhrer

Back in the 19th century, Marxism billed itself as science.  That was its appeal — 19th century science, especially physics and Darwinian biology, was destroying the old certainties.  You even had guys like Ernst Mach — a heavyweight scientist, for whom the speed of sound is named — arguing that ideas themselves evolve organically, much like organisms do.  The old world was dead; the old certainties were gone; what could be over the horizon?  Karl Marx pretended to know, with scientific certainty (yes, even back then they “fucking loved science”).

In a world where every day brought news of another of life’s certainties being overthrown by some egghead in a lab, Marxists’ dogmatic certainty kept them grounded.  That’s why so many confused young people were Marxists.  As Orwell observed back in the 1930s,

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.

Marx said there is nothing but stuff in the world.  Material possessions.  Marx said that the old certainties were all lies, designed to keep The People from demanding more stuff.  Rejigger life’s material arrangements, he said, and we shall have social Utopia, just as the fruit-juice drinkers etc. shall, by rejiggering their biochemical arrangements, have physical utopia.

Then a funny thing happened: World War II.  We won, and all of a sudden an unimaginable level of material prosperity was available to everyone.  Nobody has involuntarily gone to bed hungry in America since about 1957, and it was soon obvious that Orwell’s Socialist dream of the 1930s was the Capitalist reality of the 1960s — those Wigan Pier miners all had clothes, shoes, three hots and a cot, and the National ‘Ealf….

…. and they still weren’t happy, any more than the Baby Boomers were, though warm and safe and full and secure on their local college campus.  But instead of concluding from all this that man does not live on bread (and socialized “healthcare”) alone — because that would entail that their parents had been right all along — they concluded that Racism was the cause of all their badfeelz.  How can you enjoy yourself, even with free love and righteous bud, while poor Negroes aren’t voting in Mississippi?  So they engineered the Great Magic Party Switch of 1964, passed the Civil Rights Act, and a funny thing happened: They still weren’t happy.  Must be Vietnam.  So they ended that….

…..and they still weren’t happy, just as they weren’t happy with second-wave Feminism, New Age spirituality, gay rights, animal rights, fruit-juice drinking, nudism, sandal-wearing…

The problem with all these things is: There’s no certainty.  No end state.  At least in the old, horrible, racist-sexist-homophobic-whatever world of a century ago, you knew what you were, and had your place in the world.  Here’s Orwell again, on the “radicals” of the interwar years:

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that
Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years’ time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting.

We all know who those prim little men with white-collar jobs and cushy social positions are: The professors, the race hustlers and poverty pimps, the flunkies of the Big Government Uniparty, who preach the wonders of Diversity from behind the ramparts of the whitest, tightest gated community they can find.  Focus on the others, the youthful snob-Bolsheviks.  Do they sound familiar?

A Marxist student group at Swarthmore College disbanded itself earlier this year after realizing that its members were too rich and too white to be real commies.
According to screenshots confidentially provided to Campus Reform by an individual with access to the group’s private Facebook page, the demise of the Swarthmore Anti-Capitalist Collective (SACC) came in the wake of a farewell letter from a member who had decided the group could never be an effective proponent of “unproblematized anticapitalist politics” due to its “history of abuse, racism, and even classism.”
“From my understanding SACC disbanded because they realized the makeup and tactics of their group was at odds with their espoused principles,” Swarthmore Conservative Society President Gilbert Guerra told Campus Reform. “Their main support base was middle-upper class white kids who enjoy jogging.” . . .
Arguing that “low-income people of color should never be an afterthought in a group whose politics supposedly focus on their liberation,” the author [of the letter disbanding the group] then went on to accuse SACC of having a “history of abuse, racism, and even classism that was never adequately addressed or recognized despite constantly being brought up as an issue.”

“A history of abuse, racism, and even classism” is just a list of buzzwords.  The badfeelz must be coming from somewhere, because it certainly can’t be us!  We’re the good ones.  We’re against racism, “classism” (whatever that can possibly mean in a country where our poor people drop dead from diabetes and obesity-induced coronaries), general whatever-ism.  Like Marlon Brando said in that old movie: What are you rebelling against?  What have you got?

This is the end-state of Postmodernism, which has been the reigning dogma on campus since the late 80s.  As Stephen R.C. Hicks points out, Postmodernism is the only way to hold on to faith in Socialism in the face of logic, math, history, experience, and common sense.  And that’s fine for professors and Uniparty flunkies — they have a place in the world.  But what about the kids?

They’re told for a fact that there’s no such thing as a fact.  They’re told that everything is relative, that anything and everything is a “social construction.”  In other words, Social Justice seems to provide an explanation for why teenagers feel so alienated from everyone and everything.  There’s Reality — that’s just how life is, circa ages 12-19 — and there’s Social Justice, and since Social Justice allows you to blame someone, anyone, for your problems, it’s no surprise they embrace it.  You’re unattractive to the opposite sex?  Must be patriarchy.  But wait, you’re not so sure you even want to be attractive to the opposite sex?  Oh, you’re asexual.  But wait, you’ve got a good friend who feels the same way.  Maybe you’re homosexual?  Or transsexual?  Whatever it is, Society made you that way.  It can’t be “just the way kids are,” because that’s biology, which is Racist.

The problem is, people crave certainty.  Kids — above all — want to know their place in the world.  All the behaviors we used to call “being a teenager” are about finding that place.  Parents, teachers, scoutmasters, Little League coaches, etc., exist primarily to provide safe venues for “rebellion.”  It’s a process of differential diagnosis — “I’m not this [nerd, skater, jock, etc.], so I must be that [scout, cheerleader, goth, whatever].”  Done right, the teenager learns the hard-but-not-permanently-damaging way that the old certainties exist for a reason, and that Mom and Dad were basically right about most things (adjusted for changing times).

Social Justice short circuits all that.  To be an SJW, you are required to believe, simultaneously, with fanatical zeal, that

  • Everyone is exactly what xzhey claim xzhey are, immutably, forever; and
  • That can change without warning, in an instant, because everything is a “social construction.”

Is it any wonder they’re so screwed up?

Soon enough the snob-Bolsheviks like the ex-members of Swarthmore’s Commie Cosplay Club are going to cotton to the fact that Social Justice is a dead end.  What seemed so certain in high school (or even junior high) is revealed in college to be just one more pose, one more deception, one more mask for the ideopathic “injustice” that must be the cause of all your problems.  There is certainty in the Dark Side….

…which is why the Dark Side will win.  Today’s SJW is tomorrow’s obergruppenfuhrer.

 

Explaining Academia: Mystical Manipulation

Part I here.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Here’s a fairy tale: 30-ish A.D, Roman authorities in Palestine execute yet another in a long line of rabble-rousing, apocalypse-preaching mystics.  But this time they botch the job somehow, because reports quickly begin to circulate that the guru is still alive.  His followers, though, insist that the mystic actually raised himself from the dead — as he said he would — thus fulfilling all the prophecies about him and proving all his claims.

Most of that actually happened, as proven by sources any reasonable historian would accept.  The kicker is the guru’s followers’ claim, that the mystic actually did rise from the dead.  Because that claim is so implausible, we immediately discount it… but because his followers seem so damn sure, we start looking for alternatives: He was in a coma.  The Roman authorities thought he was dead when they took him off the cross, but he was still just barely alive, and recovered.  The disciples found a convincing lookalike.  Mass hysteria.  Whatever — we accept that something like the Resurrection actually happened, just not the thing itself.

Which is an at least superficially plausible account of Christianity’s origins, and, since the appeal of its message is obvious, is thus a superficially plausible account of Christianity’s subsequent career.  Most of us “know” lots of intellectual and cultural history that way — e.g. you probably memorized something like “the Romantic movement was a backlash against the Industrial Revolution” without thinking about it too much.  If you’re not a believer, Fox Mulder’s motto is good enough — they wanted to believe, so they did, on whatever grounds did the trick at the time.*

Here’s another fairy tale: in 1517, the Western world was being trampled under the two oppressive boots of The Church and Feudalism.  Combined, they stifled free thought, free expression, and, most importantly, the free movement of goods and gold.  So when Martin Luther posted up his famous Theses, merchants everywhere seized upon their revolutionary potential to overthrow both the Church and its enabler, Feudalism (remember, the Church owned up to half the land in most kingdoms).  From then on, money and reform went hand in hand — Capitalism created Protestantism; dialectically, Protestantism created Capitalism.

This, too, is a superficially plausible account of the origins of the Early Modern world.  To take one of endless examples, it seems pretty suspicious that the guys leading the charge to overthrow and execute Charles I — an old-school Divine Right monarch if ever there were one — just happened to be both Puritans and petit bourgeois.  See also the Huguenots, the Plymouth Colony, etc. — nobody drives a harder bargain than a guy who thinks we’re all damned to hell.

Again — superficially plausible.  Problem is, unlike Christianity, Marx’s whole schmear doesn’t rely on a physical impossibility (for those who went to college after about 1990, or who skipped class before, that whole Capitalism/Protestantism thing is Kapital 101).  Saying credo quia absurdum doesn’t get you any social cachet – this is the much likelier response, plus loads of crippling self doubt on a lot of sleepless nights.  Reducing the vast sweep of human thought to “the needs of Capital,” however, makes you sound smart, or at least college educated, to people who have been trained to regard polysyllabic gobbledygook as profundity — that is, any graduate of the American school system in the past 50 years.  And since nearly all of us forget, nearly always,  that correlation is not causation, the fact that lots of merchants were Puritans makes us behave as if the desire to make a buck caused Puritanism, or vice versa.  We ignore all the Puritans who weren’t merchants (the vast majority), all the merchants who weren’t Puritans (ditto), and all the angst Puritan merchants themselves had over their lifestyles (cf. Max Weber, above, and the Salem Witch Trials).  “Capital” doesn’t do anything, because it can’t — capital-C “Capital” is historians’ shorthand for the outcome of a lot of interrelated but autonomous processes, not some mysterious Force that arranges people like chess pieces to accomplish its mysterious designs.

Mystical manipulation, see?  Because Protestantism, the consolidation of national states, a rapid rise in literacy, the expansion of international trade, a revolution in military tactics, and a zillion other things were all happening at the same time, and because you need money for all of them, it not only doesn’t sound absurd to say “Capitalism” caused them all, it actually sounds correct.  And because of that, the guy who says it sounds like a genius.  And because of that, that guy’s disciples start furiously spinning their rationalization hamsters to come up with canon-consistent explanations for all the stuff the guru got wrong — which is to say, the vast majority of it.

And, of course, if you disagree with me, I’ll flunk your term paper.

 

 

*Not being an ancient historian or a Christian apologist, I’d be curious to know if there were any other resurrection claims in the ancient world.  If you assume Christianity is just a myth, James Frazier-style, then yeah, there’s Osiris, Orpheus returning from the underworld, etc.  But did anyone, anywhere, ever claim that about a man?  Christianity spread by word of mouth from people who unquestionably existed, and who personally saw Jesus, before and after.  Saying that Christ was transformed into an Osiris figure after his death won’t hold, unless you also claim that the Apostles were also suffering from that specific delusion, immediately after the crucifixion.  I seem to recall that there are lots of references to sorcerers who claimed to be able to raise the dead, Witch of Endor-style, but no references to any individual so raised walking around in the sun.

Know Your Leftist: Antonio Gramsci

Introducing a new series, “Know Your Leftist” — a brief intro to a major Left figure’s work.  Caveats: 1) This is not a comprehensive overview.  2) Unless absolutely necessary, we’ll avoid technical vocabulary.  3) We’ll avoid historiography, too — we’re not going into the weeds of A’s critique of B’s deviation of C’s revisionism, ivory tower-style, because a) it’s unnecessary and b) it’s boring and c) that’s how eggheads try to convince everyone they’re smart.

Look: You don’t actually need to read these guys.  I haven’t, for the most part, and have no intention to, because their actual words don’t matter much anymore.  The “conservative” parallel is the Bible:  Lefty spews some talking point about how Jesus was really a communist or whatever, citing some cherrypicked line of scripture.  You can cite chapter and verse at them, complete with exegesis on the whole of the Gospel in question, but… does that ever work?  It’s the impression that matters.  The chestnut.  The stuff “everybody knows.”  For a certain type of person, “everybody knows” Jesus was really a socialist, and they behave accordingly.*  Thus, so many of our Leninists don’t know they’re Leninists, have never read Lenin, and wouldn’t recognize him if he sent their whole family to die in a Siberian lumber camp.  So, too, with our modern Gramscians, which is where we’ll start.  Gramsci’s actual thought is different from what modern eggheads have made of it, but as they’re the ones who are destroying what’s left of society, they’re the ones that count.

Who was he?: An Italian Marxist who got crosswise with Mussolini and thus spent a lot of time in prison, where he wrote his most important works.

What he got right: “Hegemony;” civil society vs. political society; the role of intellectuals.

Gramsci set himself the task of explaining why the Revolution not only wasn’t happening, but seemed further away than ever.  Looking at the Western world in the wake of World War I, he couldn’t help noticing that people were much better off than they were before — happier, freer, longer-lived, healthier, all of which Marx said was impossible given the late stage of capitalism.  Of course Marx couldn’t be wrong, so Gramsci theorized that the state is actually two states — the political state and the civil state — and the latter (the bourgeoisie) compromise with the former (the capitalists) to improve their position relative to the proletariat.

Those compromises take place almost entirely in the realm of culture — bourgeois values (what we call “Western Civ”) becomes “normal,” which keeps the proletariat from forming their own culture of resistance, which keeps them down.  This dominance of bourgeois culture is known as “hegemony,” and it’s perpetuated through academia, the media, etc.  Thus, Gramsci argued, Left intellectuals needed to take those institutions over, thus beginning the long march through the institutions… with what results, it’s hardly necessary to say.

occupy girl2

He accurately described the role of intellectuals in the academy during this process.  Infogalactic says:

Such “organic” intellectuals do not simply describe social life in accordance with scientific rules, but instead articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and experiences which the masses could not express for themselves. The need to create a working-class culture relates to Gramsci’s call for a kind of education that could develop working-class intellectuals, whose task was not to introduce Marxist ideology from without the proletariat, but to renovate the existing intellectual activity of the masses and make it critical of the status quo.

In other words, the purpose of a Gramscian intellectual is to make more Gramscian intellectuals, who, as good proles, forever put feelz above realz.  Again, with what result, it’s hardly necessary to say.  But it explains academia’s fetish for the debased, vulgar, and deviant.  In the Fifties and Sixties, wannabe-intellectuals like Jack Kerouac sold other wannabe-intellectuals on the idea that the bad parts of prole culture are “authentic;” the worse, the better.  So “authenticity” isn’t just acting like a buffoon to make your daddy mad; it’s, like, critique of society, maaaan.  Fast forward 50 years, and academia is nothing but a celebration of deviance — “freaking out the squares” is, was, and always will be the whole point.  And now they have cultural hegemony.

What he got wrong:  Aside from the whole Communism thing, nothing.  Hegemony really works that way.  All modern “intellectuals” — that is, anyone who doesn’t use the word “intellectual” with a cynical snicker — simply IS a Gramscian organic intellectual.  Which is why we’re screwed.

Further reading: As I said, you don’t really need to read these guys, but reading about them sometimes helps.  Roger Kimball has two books on the university, Tenured Radicals and The Long March, that are quick fun reads.  If nothing else, you’ll know for sure what a scam “higher” “”””education”””” is.

 

 

*That they don’t follow this out and actually practice Christianity along with their socialism tells you that they understand neither Jesus nor Socialism, and also cognitive dissonance is bullshit, but whaddaya gonna do?  If they could do the whole “logic” thing, they wouldn’t be Leftists.

 

Today’s SJW is Tomorrow’s Obergruppenfuhrer

or why nothing is anybody’s fault, part III.

As Marxism is Calvinism minus God, so modern “social justice” ideology is Marxism minus Marx.

Calvinism’s two fundamental tenets are:

  1. mankind’s total depravity, and
  2. predestination

Only a tiny fraction of mankind is destined to be Saved; you’ll know you’re one of them if you hate the rest of humanity almost as much as you hate yourself.  Since this is not a psychologically sustainable creed, even for such world-class haters as the Puritans, in practice Calvinism was endless, frantic displacement activity – the famous “Protestant work ethic.”  Drop God, and Puritans become Yankees — dour, hectoring pharisees who call you a whore while they’re fucking you over to make a few bucks.

Marxism’s two fundamental tenets are exactly the same.  Social classes, not God, do the predestining and the hatred gets called “revolutionary consciousness,” but it’s the same thing, with the same result — read any academic Marxist work and try to stay awake through the endless theoretical discussions of A’s version of B’s critique of C’s revision of D’s misunderstanding of the relationship between base and superstructure….

Just as 18th century science killed Calvin’s God, so 20th century history killed Marx’s.  Marx’s nonsense “economics” and sub-Hegelian worship of History are so laughably wrong that hardly anyone without a second PhD can mention them with a straight face.  Drop Marx, and Marxists become Social Justice Warriors — people who know xzhemselves to be on the right side of History, despite also knowing that there are no facts, only discourses.  They become, in effect, nothing but power worshipers.

And that’s where it gets interesting.  Marx’s disciples, e.g. Lenin, were power worshipers too, but they at least had the excuse (if that’s the word) of thinking they’d tapped into a real, existing power — the irresistible Force of History — in the same way the Puritans knew they were Saved.  SJWs know there’s no History; History is, after all, the narrative unfolding of Truth.  There are no facts, only discourses; and hence no Truth, only the provisional “truths” of whatever temporary coalition has the power to enforce them.

These days, of course, the SJWs still believe themselves to be that coalition.  BUT: it doesn’t have to be that way, as they know best of all (not consciously, of course, but in their secret hearts).  How could it be otherwise?  Hence the ongoing apocalyptic freakout over the rise of Donald Trump.  Trump uses language better than they do — Hillary’s campaign, it’s becoming clear, was over from the moment he uttered his famous “because you’d be in jail” quip.  Trump’s coalition might well twist language in such a way that his discourse prevails.

At that point, they’d be consistent with their philosophy — Trump’s discourse triumphed; therefore Trump’s discourse is right.  And so they’ll do what they always do, jump out in front of the parade and pretend to lead it by being More Radical Than Thou.  And so today’s blue-haired bicurious vegan slam poet is tomorrow obergruppenfuhrer.  I give it maybe three more years before they start trading in their pink pussy hats for red and black armbands.

LITERALLY a Metaphor

Kids these days can’t process figurative speech.  Literally can’t process it, which is why they say “literally” all the time.  If you’re under 30, it’s like… like…

I’m sure there are cog-sci studies on this, if anyone cares to plow through PubMed one rainy afternoon.  I’m going off my observations interacting with, and attempting to instruct, college kids.  So, yeah, it’s all anecdotal, but the sample size is decent.  I see the following types of communication:

Undigested Metaphors.  E.g “Donald Trump is literally Hitler.”  George Orwell nailed this back in 1946, and as this post is really just an attempt to update “Politics and the English Language,” you should probably skip this and go read that.  Should you choose to soldier on, this is the essay with the famous quote “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. ”  The rest of the paragraph is equally instructive:

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

We don’t use Bolshevik jargon like “reactionary” or “bourgeois” much anymore, but the others are very much with us.  In Orwell’s day they at least still had vestigial meanings — even the commie trying to justify Stalin’s gulags would make a nod to Plato when asked “what is justice?”(1)  These days, we’re in the odd position of throwing around words and phrases that have never meant anything.  Whites being racist towards other whites in favor of blacks, as compensation for the supposed racism of other whites towards other blacks — all of whom have been dead for 100+ years in most cases — and calling anyone who notices the blatant self-contradiction “racist”… that’s the kind of thing I mean.  Kids who call Donald Trump “literally Hitler” don’t know any of Trump’s policies and couldn’t recognize a Nazi if he anschlussed their ass with his jackboot.  It’s just a metaphor that passes through their speech undigested, kinda like corn in… well, that’s another metaphor, so I won’t confuse any Millennial readers with it.  The point of Undigested Metaphors is to express disapproval, with an implied threat of legal action.

Voice-to-Text.  This is an expression of disapproval without the implied threat of legal action, as most VtT phrases could themselves be actionable.  E.g. “ur a fag,” the standard putdown of “noobs” (or whatever it is now) on the internet / video games / whatever.  It might as well be an emoji, and had voice-to-text technology progressed slower, it probably would’ve been, e.g. 8=>.  It doesn’t occur to users that words like “fag” actually mean something — it can’t, as the people who throw around homosexual slurs the most are Social Justice Warriors, who at every opportunity proclaim themselves the BFFs of every sexual orientation except straight.

Tweets. A cant(2) phrase intended to be retweeted / upvoted, i.e. virtue-signaling.  As any actual information content would almost always destroy the intended effect, Tweets are effectively anti-communication. E.g. “love trumps hate!,” followed immediately by “DIAF Republicans!”  In the dark ages before social media, this was called bumperstickerese — see, for example, any Subaru Outback in any college town in America, where “Coexist” bumper stickers nestle quite comfortably next to calls for the eradication of entire classes of people.

Tinfoil Hat Prose.  According to feminists, everything that’s wrong with a feminist’s life is the fault of The Patriarchy, even though nobody knows any patriarchs.  Same goes for White Skin Privilege, Heterosexuality, and all the other “social constructions” — if they were true, we’d never know about it, because all the chicks, gays, blacks, etc. would still be on the plantation(3).  Phrases like “social construction” give the veneer of academic respectability to what are essentially hare-brained conspiracy theories.  It’s easy enough to detect one — just ask, “who is society (a patriarch, etc.), comrade?  Point to a specific member of the set.”  As the whole point of Tinfoil Hat Prose is to keep everything in the passive voice — “women are oppressed by the patriarchal reification of capitalism” instead of “women are oppressed by Steve” — the same technique refudiates it.

KISSes.  New writers are commanded to “Keep It Simple, Stupid,” and this is the only type of prose modern kids can handle.  In my experience, you can’t make instructions simple enough.  Your sentences can’t be too short, too clear, too declarative.  If you leave any room for interpretation at all, you will be misinterpreted, in hilarious ways you couldn’t have forseen in a million years.  This is literally — literally!!! — the only way to communicate with Millennials.

More as the mood strikes me.

 

(1) n.b. to any Millennials reading this: “What is justice?” was the central question of Plato’s Republic, which used to be required reading in any college humanities class… often in the original Greek.  Here’s a summary.

(2) n.b. to Millennials, not a typo (though how would you know?).  “Clear your mind of cant” isn’t an uplifting slogan about being all you can be; it’s about thinking for yourself.  “Cant” is dogma, things “everyone knows,” the rote bullshit you had to memorize for every test you’ve ever taken in your entire lives.  Rosa Parks is the patron saint of cant.

(3) no, really, homosexuals used to be confined to lavender plantations, which were located in closets.  That was the point of the Stonewall Riots.  Pick up a history book, why dontcha?

“Home Grown” Rotten Fruit

So I’m reading this article … and it suddenly becomes crystal clear what I’m being sold and how it’s being sold:

Allowing a terrorist disguised as a refugee is a possibility, Sandweg said. But he added, “talk to any professional and they will probably say what keeps them up at night is the homegrown terrorist.”

In Paris, where 129 were killed in a combination of shootouts and bombings, some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens.

“There is a notion that refugees are the source of the problem.  Recent events show the opposite.  Individuals get radicalized at home and it’s not the wolf slipping in in sheep’s clothing.”

Let’s take a look at the wording up there.

“Homegrown terrorist.”

And “homegrown” terrorists are grown from what sort of seed, in general?

Next sentence “some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens”.

Some of them.  They didn’t even say “most” of them.  And you know darned well that if they could say “most” of them, they would.

Second, if we look at the “radicalized” citizens, what was their path to said citizenship?  I’ll bet francs to beignets they weren’t multi-generational French people named “Pierre” or “Francois”.  Immigrants become citizens unless they’re there illegally.  Refugees who have children have children who are citizens at the very least.

Now back to my first question … who is it being radicalized?

By saying “homegrown” and “citizens”, they are intentionally disguising the problem, and that is the problem of setting up a culture clash in your own country.  It might not happen often in the first generation … but that’s not what’s been going on in Europe, is it?

This is exactly what one would expect when you import people from radically different cultures and bend over backward to allow them not to assimilate.  This leaves, after a generation or two, a large population of unassimilated people who have thus not been able to successfully integrate into society, most of whom probably therefore have crappy jobs and don’t mix with their new “home” countrymen.  And they understandably feel “separate” and “other”.  And it just so happens that their religious cohorts in their families’ original home countries and around the world are all to willing to provide the spark needed for radicalization, even self-radicalization.

But it all happened here at home, so don’t worry about bringing more in.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

 

Fake Intellectuals

Further to a post at Z Man’s, there is exactly one political principle that doesn’t lead directly to totalitarianism: Equality before the law.  This principle cannot be amended, modified, nuanced, gray area-d, penumbra-d, folded, spindled, or mutilated.  Equality before the law, and let the chips fall where they may.

This will of course entail some outcomes that are not socially just.  Equally applied, the anti-crime laws will disproportionately affect blacks, as they commit disproportionate amounts of crime.  Equally applied, the patent laws will disproportionately favor Jews and East Asians, as they have higher average IQs.  And yes, equally applied, the laws pretty much guarantee that some people are going to get screwed, even up to, sigh, children starving in the streets.

lovejoy-think-of-the-children-16nov131

Life ain’t fair, and this notion that it’s somehow the government’s job to make life fair — thus abandoning the principle of Equality Before the Law — leads directly to tyranny:

  • There is no objective definition of “fair;”
  • Therefore, someone must be empowered to judge individual cases;
  • Anyone granted such power will abuse it;

And pretty soon we’re reduced to arguing whether that FEMA camp is a gulag, a workhouse, a concentration camp, or a thought reform center.

That’s really all there is to it.  People are what they are.  We can make up fancy theories about why this can’t happen, or that it’s actually fair, or how that guy really deserved his rubber hose time in a secret police dungeon, but at bottom there is only Reality.

Stop intellectualizing.  Stop over-thinking.  Stop rationalizing.  There is Reality, and there is Theory, and when the two conflict, Theory must yield to Reality.  You’ll find that’s true even in the gulag (thought reform center, whatever).  The way things are going, I’ll be in the next bunk over.

Reductio ad Leftism

Stacy McCain has some questions for the radical feminists:

Any skeptic must ask, why are the categories of “man” and “woman” political? Why is there a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women,” what does it mean to describe heterosexuality as an “economic system,” and what manner of “society” could exist without heterosexuality?

Let me take a stab at answering them.  Now, obviously these are rhetorical questions — the answer, as McCain notes in the very next sentence, is: “Wittig’s purpose is to destroy “society” as it exists.”  What I want to do here is explore some of the “thought” process behind this rhetorical strategy, because trust me, your kids are getting this in college.

There’s a nugget of truth in every Big Idea Leftist academics (BIRM) have farted out over the last half century… so I guess technically it should be “sharted out,” but whatever, point is, all academic theorizing is a variation of Jon Stewart’s “clown nose on / clown nose off” rhetorical strategy.  Stewart makes some asinine fanservice remark, and if he gets too much blowback for being an obvious partisan hack, he says “oh lighten up, it was just a joke,” and points to his smirking fanbois as evidence.  If he doesn’t get called on it, though, he and all his fanbois repeat it over and over as if it’s a serious bit of political analysis, which enables them to claim that they’re Smarter and Better Informed Than You even though they get all their profound mindthoughts from a Comedy Central bobblehead.

Academia works the same way.  They like to pretend that everything, and I do mean everything, is words and nothing but words.  Which is tautologically true: Since we can only think in words, words are necessarily what we think in.  So what happens if we change the words?

No, seriously.  Maybe you weren’t a huge nerd as a teenager, but trust me, this stuff is catnip to a certain kind of dork who thinks he’s way smarter than he actually is.  Normies see you calling a rabbit a smeerp and laugh, because hey, it’s still just a rabbit.  But playing with words does change your perceptions.  Consider these definitions of “human being:”

  • A human being is a rational animal, the only known rational animal in the universe.
  • A human being is a great ape, halfway in size between a chimpanzee and a gorilla.

Both equally true, but oh what a difference!  Clown nose off, this is persuasion, a selective presentation of facts towards a rhetorical end.  Clown nose on, and in comes the unstated but lethally important qualifier, the suggestion of which is the whole point of the exercise:  “A human being is nothing but a great ape.”

So the tautology

  • “as we can only think in words, we think in words”

becomes, clown nose on,

  • “as we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with reality”

which with the addition of some baggy pants, floppy shoes, and a seltzer horn, becomes

  • “as words mediate our interaction with reality, words create our reality.”

which of course is logically equivalent to

  • “reality itself is nothing but words.”

And boom, you’re a Social Justice Warrior.*  My preferred pronouns are “xyr” and “jermajesty.”

dipkoukmvc8uryknny8f

Should anyone challenge you on this… well, since you usually only hear stuff like this in the academy, what you do is fail ’em and report ’em to the Dean for hate speech.  But if someone on the Board of Regents, say, asks you — pink slip in hand — if you’re really teaching undergrads that reality itself is nothing but words, you take the clown nose off and say oh no, of course not, we’re only teaching that words influence perception.

And that’s how you get feminists asserting that “man” and “woman” are political, that there’s a class struggle between them, et cetera ad nauseam.  It’d make your eyes bleed to do this for every item on the list, but here’s a brief e.g.:

“Masculinity,” say, is both DEscriptive and PREscriptive.  When we define behavior X as “masculine,” we’re saying “X is what real men do;” at the same time, we’re also saying “if you want to be considered a real man, do X.”  And who is this “we”?  Why, the community of language-users, of course.  And since that community changes, the sense of the word also changes — the Vikings had a word for “masculine,” no doubt, but it meant something very different than the English word.  Which means notions like “masculinity” are (nothing but) “social constructions;” they change as society changes.  And how does society change?  Via politics, of course, since “politics” is defined as the interplay of personal preferences in the public sphere.  Thus words like “man” and “woman” are, at bottom, political categories.  You and I and my prison gang voted; you’re the woman.

Feel free to take the final exam: If social life is nothing but economics — which follows, clown nose on, from the observation that people exchange stuff for other stuff — you should easily be able to deduce why heterosexuality is an economic system, and thus explain the quasi-Marxist class war between the sexes.

Yes, they really do think like this.  They have to — without the notion that life itself is nothing but words, Leftism will always founder on Reality’s rocks.  I’ve given you the academic version, but you can see it everywhere these days.  It’s why the Cult will never give up on the idea that Putin hacked the election, for example — if he didn’t, then the American people really did prefer Trump to their terrible, horrible, no good very bad candidate Hillary, which is unpossible.  So they’ll keep repeating it until it’s true, and it will be true — until the last remnants of the USA are overrun by superintelligent apes, it’ll be a true fact that everyone knows Putin hacked the election for Trump.  Because if you can just get enough people to repeat if for long enough, reality itself will conform to your magic, magic words, because after all, since we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with….

QED.

 

 

*The Six Readers will undoubtedly recognize this as The Gem, aka The Worst Argument in the World.  I seriously can’t recommend David Stove enough to y’all.

Thanksgiving Chestnuts

As everybody knows, on this date back in 1620, evil white genocidal gun-toting religious fanatics tricked the noble Native Americans into teaching them how to grow corn, which in their language was called “maize.” Soon all the noble Native Americans died from smallpox-infected blankets. And patriarchy. Also global warming.

So have a good one, fellow Deplorables. Oppress a LGBTQ family member, grab a pussy, be sure not to use any parts of the buffalo, and make America great again. Heil Hitler.*

*this post brought to you straight from the brain of every obnoxious freshperson just home from their $50K/year “safe space,” formerly known as a “college.” It does not reflect the opinions of the writer, the management, WordPress, the Republican Party, the designated hitter, or any of their heirs, assigns, or pets.**

**No, really — have a great one, y’all. I’m off to watch football and test the human stomach’s maximum elasticity.