Category Archives: Things I Wish Conservatives Understood

Why Young Americans Love Socialism

No, it’s not ignorance of history, despite what wildly overrated old fossils like Camille Paglia say.  You can “know” all the history ever written, but you won’t learn a damn thing if you keep shoving it into the same tired old boxes.  See, for example, the wildly overrated old fossil Camille Paglia:

“While I believe that boom-and-bust capitalism is inherently Darwinian and requires moderate regulation for the long-term greater good,” she says, “I insist that capitalism has produced the glorious emancipation of women.” They can now “support themselves and live on their own, and no longer must humiliatingly depend on father or husband.”

That’s exactly backasswards, sugar tits.  Oh, capitalism “emancipated” women, all right.  But that’s BAD.  Nothing makes me want to take a long, hard second look at Marxism — or radical Islam — more than capitalism’s emancipation of women.

“Capitalism” is the bastard child of the Enlightenment, which was a gross error based on Western culture’s oldest, most comprehensively refuted, yet most enduring myth: That Man is the “rational animal.”  Life would be so much better, everyone from Aristotle to Rousseau argued, if people simply carried on their affairs rationally.  Someone like David Hume might’ve had the good grace to squirm a bit if he were forced to attend a service at one of Revolutionary France’s “Temples of Reason,” but neither he nor any of the other Enlightened could’ve objected.

Nor could any “capitalist.”  All the hooey about “freedom” that has grown barnacle-like on the word “capitalism” is exactly that — hooey, eyewash, propaganda against the police-state thuggery that Marxism so obviously entails, and Marxists so fervently embraced.  Stripped of all that, “capitalism” is nothing less than the Cult of Reason in action: purely rational actors, trading on objective information — information, that is, stripped of its human element.  Faith, hope, charity, culture, blood and soil… none of that matters to the bottom line, so all of it has to go.  To the “capitalist,” women are just labor-units and consumption-units… grossly under-utilized ones, in fact, and there’s your “emancipation of women.”  Ladies, now you too are free to toil in cubicles 50 hours a week, to buy stuff that no one could possibly need…

… except that “free” isn’t quite the right word, is it?  “Required” is much closer.  “The Economy” needs you to make partner at the law firm, gals, and to do that it needs you to take out that hundred large in student loans, to sacrifice your prime childbearing years, to forego marriage completely, if we’re being honest.  Just like it needs you to pop out that one designer, turkey-baster kid at age 40, so that there’ll be a few little consumer-units to keep the day cares (and colleges!) in business until those autistic, benzo-addicted consumer-units get around to making partner and popping one out on their own…

Other than the fact that the NKVD are all volunteers these days — check your Twitter feed! — what, exactly, is the difference between life under “capitalism” and life in a Worker’s Paradise?  You, ladies — certainly including Prof. Paglia — are no more “free” to reject iCrap than Stalin’s slaves were to not use the equally-shoddy, broken-in-three-months products of Soviet industry.  “Capitalism” is as antithetical to real human life than Communism ever was.

Given all that, “Socialism” seems like a decent deal.

Not only that, but “Socialism” — as it’s taught in schools, the way college kids understand it — offers not just an alternative, but a meaningful alternative.  What does “capitalism” offer?  If you were tempted to mutter any iteration of “freedom,” I want you to re-read the last few paragraphs fifteen more times.  Then I want you to go rent a room in the nearest college town, and spend a weekend wandering around.  Freedom?  College kids are the freest people on earth.  The entire ecosystem is devoted to them.  They can watch, eat, drink, pierce, insert, or have inserted, anything, anywhere, at any time.  No kink, quirk, or hang-up is so bizarre that you can’t find at least one other enthusiastic participant near you in a five-minute trawl through your smartphone.

The very word “choice” is meaningless to college kids, because things are defined by their opposites and they’ve never had anything but limitless choice.  Want to know why I retired from teaching college?  There were lots of reasons, of course, but by far the biggest one was this: Any time I tried to enforce the rules — stuff like “due dates” and “proper use of apostrophes” — I’d get students flooding my office hours who weren’t just mad, but bewildered.  It didn’t take too many incoherently angry freshmen demanding that I change any and all class policies at their whim for me to realize that I was the first person who had ever, in their entire lives, told them “no.”

In a world like that — which is the world of pretty much every young American, from sea to shining sea — what could the word “freedom” possibly mean?

Socialism offers an identity, a goal, a sense of purpose.  Sure, it’s a pointless identity and an impossible goal, but they don’t know that.  How could they?  Their entire “education,” K-thru-PhD, has been designed specifically to avoid them knowing it.  The only other option they see is the status quo, which to them is: Take out the loans to get the degree in order to get the job, which you have to have to pay off the loans that got you the degree that got you the job.  Someone like Greta Thunberg is a hero to them because she’s for something, anything, that isn’t that.

If we’re ever to get off the Internet and into the real world, Our Thing must realize how desperately hungry for purpose our young people are.  They’re wrestling with a deep, pervasive nihilism, and as we know, whoever accepts nihilism always — always — flees to the biggest, most all-encompassing collectivism on offer.  Right now that “Socialism,” however you want to define it.  But it doesn’t have to be.

Take a page from the gamers.  Set up “fetch quests,” mini-games, that kind of thing — objective statistics, complete with badges of rank.  It sounds silly, but it works.  Look at how the kids on the Left are killing themselves — sometimes literally killing themselves — to prove who’s the #Wokest.  There’s tremendous energy there, tremendous vitality.  Give them a purpose — and a way to show others they’re working towards it — and they’ll do anything you want.  The Socialists understand this.  Why can’t we?

Loading Likes...

Africa: The Video Game

Today’s more-than-typically excellent Z Man column says Our Thing is going to go nowhere until we start convincing Normals that the old assumptions are wrong.  People aren’t all the same, they sure as hell aren’t infinitely malleable, and there’s no one ideal form of human organization.  The question then becomes, how do we convince Normals of this?  Here’s my stab at an answer:

Africa has always been “problematic,” as the kids say, for save-the-worlders.  The place seems impervious to modernity, and has been since “modernity” was “three malarial Portuguese dudes in a rickety sailboat.”  Even so cucky a cuck as Jonah Goldberg once wrote a column — sorry bud, the Internet’s forever — arguing in effect that because Africans are so congenitally hopeless, we should re-colonize the place for their own good (i.e. before the Chinese, who use King Leopold’s Ghost as a how-to manual, beat us to it).  Faced with the utterly inexplicable primitive weirdness one sees every day on the Dark Continent, Old Africa Hands simply shrug and say: “Africa wins again.”

This is why, of course, the “race is just a social construction” crowd never venture much past 1800 when instructing us that, as one of the most hilarious of recent tomes puts it, “race does not exist, and the very factors that we think of as determining it a person’s heritage or skin color are mere pretexts for the brutalization of powerless people by the powerful.”  The authoress — who is, natch, as dusky-hued as Elizabeth Warren — is the recipient of such prestigious scientific awards as the “Taft Prize in Labor History” and the “Spruill Prize in Southern Women’s History.”  If those don’t qualify one to unravel the mysteries of the human genome, I ask you, what would?

And furthermore: See what I mean when I say I’m the only guy I know who really believes in evolution?  I’m quite comfortable with the idea that Somalians became Swedes over the course of 500,000 years or so, because evolution is so obviously copious, local, and recent.  The race-is-just-a-social-construction crowd, on the other hand, would have a hell of a time explaining just what part of “society” turns your skin pale, your eyes blue, and your intestines lactose-intolerant… which is why they never bother trying.  Ditto with inherited behavioral traits — if those are “social constructions,” too, then “society” must’ve turned wolves into dogs somehow… but hey, what do I know?  I never even made it past the quarterfinals for the “Brown Publication Prize in Black Women’s History.”

Anyway, all that is just logic, which as we know won’t do squat to convince the ideologically inconvincible.  We’ll have to go at it another way.*

Since this is the Internet, I assume you all have played some variant of the classic strategy game Civilization.  Let’s suppose a version of that game set in 1,000,000 BC.  You win by achieving world domination, via culture, technology, or the space race.  You load it up, and the computer assigns you to Sub-Saharan Africa.  What do you do?

If you’re scientifically literate a so-called “race realist,” of course, you just reboot the damn thing, because you know you’re screwed.  But let’s stipulate that you’re a cuck.  Let’s further stipulate that you’re in God mode, so you can do whatever you want to the physical environment.  You can re-route rivers, alter coastlines, cut down malarial jungles, assign yourself natural resources, whatever.  You can, in short, re-create Sweden down to the individual salted herring, so long as you retain the original human genetic group.  Now what do you do?

The answer, of course, is the one Goldberg suggested in that long-ago column, the one he’ll be forced to read from at his show trial early in the Warren administration: Impose Sweden on it by force.  If “race” really is meaningless — if the only reason Somalis aren’t Swedes is because Somalis act like Somalis, not Swedes — then the only way to prevent your computer civilization from becoming Somalia is to force them to act like Swedes.  Which is, after all, the fundamental premise of games like Civilization — whether you’re Queen Victoria or Mohandas Gandhi, Isabella or Montezuma, Peter the Great or Shaka Zulu, the different outcomes are solely dependent on the efficient use of culture.

To really drive the point home, let’s stipulate a mod of Civilization called White Man’s Burden or something, set during the Scramble for Africa.  Your goal isn’t world domination this time; instead, you’ve got to get your African civilization ready to achieve independence as a functioning member of the modern society of nations.  Again, you’re in God mode, so you can do whatever you want to the physical environment.  You can edit your cities, too, so that you can give, say, Kinshasa a modern seaport and an industrial base.  What do you do?

To ask is to answer, and hopefully by now even the Normals are starting to get it.  Even if we grant the ludicrous premise that “Race is just a social construction,” any attempts to solve the problems “racism” left behind involve the kind of cultural hegemony even a guy like Macaulay never dreamed of.  If it’s NOT a social construction, though, the answer is….?

 

 

 

*And yeah, I’m aware of the emerging consensus of multiple parallel human evolutions, as opposed to the “we all migrated out of Africa” hypothesis.  But since that’s infinitely worse for the “race is just a social construction” crowd — implying, as it must, that Blacks are an entirely different species — we’ll just leave it be.
Loading Likes...

In and Out

Confession time: I’m what you might call a Trump agnostic. Some of what he’s done pleases me, some things about him I find frustrating, and almost everything he does I find entertaining. Someone once asked me who I would vote for and I answered at the time that whatever my disagreements with the man, I had no doubts in my mind that Trump loved America and wanted to do right by her – I still believe that and for me it’s not nothing in consideration for a president.

Still I do try to listen to both sides of the Trump issue on the right, and here I will admit that I find both sides – his fans and his haters – frequently obnoxious. Indeed my feelings towards the man himself are too often influenced by who I read last. If a super-fan, Trump is annoying. If a hater, Trump is the GOAT. Thus i try not to rely on my gut or feelings on the matter but ever seek out the truth. Thus listening to both sides.

Because the problem with humans is that our senses alone collect so much data that our brains can’t possibly store and process all of it. So we have to constantly shift through and analyse this data, our brains prioritizing some while ignoring the rest. But what is really important? The color, make and model of nearby cars? The color, style and make of the shoes everyone around you are wearing? Some data is objectively important (like who is shooting at you) but a lot of data out there is… debatable. That’s why we communicate with others – because the data I picked up and retained is going to be a bit different from what you picked up. By combining all our datasets we can craft a larger picture of the whole truth, like a jigsaw puzzle.

This then is the frustration when I listen to a Trump fan (like Andrew Klavan) vs a Trump skeptic (like Jonah Goldberg). Both sides often make relevant points about important data, and both sides seem to avoid what the other one is addressing leading to a frustration of everybody talking past each other. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that the fans seemed to make an effort to confront the counter arguments a bit more often – the skeptics rarely so. In fact the skeptics seemed to go out of their way to even acknowledge competing evidence. Things just weren’t adding up. Now I’m also a big believer in Occum’s Razor which should be summed up as “don’t add additional factors without evidence.” , so I prefer to take the folks at their word rather than inventing some kind of conspiracy theory.

Let’s then think about like in programming. At root we only have 3 factors: the input, the process, and the output. If the output is wrong, there’s only 2 other places to look. What can we tell about process? Fundamentally – nothing. We can’t read minds so there’s no way to really be sure what’s going on inside another’s. We’ll have to accept their claims about their own process at face value for right now. So let’s look at input.

In fact, let’s look at what happened this weekend.

In case you haven’t heard, there was a March for Life on Washington DC at which point a video & image of an original-American drummer and a boy in a MAGA cap went viral. Shortly after the viral spread, the other shoe dropped.

Turned out there was a lot more to the story and everyone was reacting to pretty much the opposite of what was the truth.

Let’s look at the National Review’s article on it.

Oh wait, that’s actually the SECOND article NRO published. There was a first article before that. It’s captured under “Update IV” at this link.

Now it all began to make sense. The trump-skeptic side was having faulty input. They are believing the media.

There’s actually a term for this: Gell-Mann Amnesia. Michael Crichton described it as:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

This somehow seems to make it all worse than a simple betrayal.

See, I’m old enough that for most of my political life, conservatives have been bitching about the media. That whenever an article was written about Reagan or Bush or Bush or whatever politician, so many of these figures would be there with an article pointing out all the facts overlooked and complicating factors ignored. Always and forever if the media reported on a congressman’s tie, the conservatives would double check it. Now? Now when they complain about Trump, you can quickly piece together that it’s because they’re accepting the media’s basic premises.

Never mind that nothing’s changed over those years save the republican targeted. Never mind that a few months ago the press did the exact same thing to Kavanaugh (with many of these figures rightly objected to). No this time a video and image go up about a kid in a red hat, and the people who should know better accept the media’s premises unquestioned. It’s a movement-wide Gell-Mann Amnesia.

If you’re a skeptic reading this: Imagine it’s a few years ago and you came across one of your conservative colleagues or heroes complaining about how misogynist Romney was being with his “binders full of women” line. Imagine that no matter how much you tried to correct that person, get them to see the fuller context, they objected. Said they saw all they needed to. Called you a cultist – a blind Romney follower. I remember how most of you fought against that little media deception back in the day. So imagine how you would feel in that situation.

That’s how we feel now.

You don’t have to like Trump. You don’t have to agree with Trump. You don’t have to excuse the worst excesses of his followers.

But MAYBE you could try reapplying your old skepticism, and stop buying what the media is selling. You above all people should know better. Stop and ask yourself why this time you think the habitual liar is being truthful.

As we say in programming.  Garbage in, garbage out.  So if leftism in…

…no self-awareness out.

Loading Likes...

The Spirit of ’68 – UPDATED

As hard as it is to believe now, Leftists used to be formidable opponents.  When Orwell described the typical Socialist of tremulous old ladies’ imaginations, he was arguing against a stereotype:

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….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.

Old habits die hard, and old beliefs die harder, so it’s no surprise that people back then thought real Socialists were bomb-throwing rioters who were one strike away from seizing the factories.  Radical politics was a contact sport well into the 20th century (The Road to Wigan Pier was published in 1937, when the Russian Revolution was barely 20 years old).  One could be forgiven for thinking, even then, that the “prim little man with a white-collar job” had a few working-class bruisers he could call on if things got tough, because for quite a while, he actually did.

The Left was formidable on the other end of the spectrum, too.  Back then, a college education meant something — hell, back then a high school education was an achievement.  Have you ever actually read Communist literature?  It’s dense, full of arcane jargon and Capital Letters, charts and graphs, facts and figures.  Even that quintessential 20th century chimera, the New Soviet Man, seemed to have the imprimatur of science — we know now that psychoanalysis is bunk, but the Frankfurt School sure made it look like Socialism was the scientifically proven high road to mental health.   When all you’ve got is a sixth grade education, when you can’t even pronounce things like “Oedipus complex,” you’re going to feel yourself at an insurmountable disadvantage going up against some egghead with a PhD.

The commies knew it, too, which is why the first thing they did when they signed you up for the Party was get you enrolled in some classes.  I bet most of you don’t know that this is what “community colleges” were for, back when the movement got started at the turn of the 20th century.  It’s no accident, as the Marxists back then liked to say, that schools designed to level up the skills of working men and grammar school teachers were immediately taken over by fellow travelers.  The New Soviet Man was supposed to be something like a street-brawling longshoreman with a Master’s degree, and that’s what they set out to build, all over the West.  And it worked, too, surprisingly well, such that intellectually gifted, courageous men like Whittaker Chambers could become high-ranking Communist cadres.

We all know what happened after that: The Baby Boom.  David Horowitz is a good example of the change.  A Red Diaper Baby, Horowitz got all the heavy intellectual training the Old Left invested in its intellectuals; Horowitz can still argue Dialectical Materialism with the best of ’em.  But though he was technically born right before the Baby Boom (1939), he got swept up in its emotional atmosphere — the Ramparts crowd was interested in cultural revolution, not critiques of the forces of production.  They were the leading lights of the New Left, and all the New Left really wanted to do was flip tables, break shit, and freak out the squares — overthrow “The Man” first; figure the rest out later.

Which is the same position we — Our Thing, the “alt-right,” whatever the hell we’re calling it this week — find ourselves in today, comrades.

Section break!

The reason the Old Right was defenseless against the Old Left was that the Old Right, having facts, reason, and 5,000 years of intellectual history on its side, had no idea how to argue against the jargon-spewing fuggernauts trying to turn the whole world into a Worker’s Paradise.  Leftism looks like an argument — a coherent set of propositions, backed up by facts and reason.  It sounds like an argument, a formidable one.  But it’s not an argument.  It’s a set of tautologies.

That’s why the Old Right’s counterarguments fail so brutally.  A tautology is true by definition — e.g. “whatever will be, will be.”  We all know this is just a proverb, a nifty little reminder not to stress out too much about things we can neither predict or control.  Nobody who says “whatever will be, will be” considers it a serious prognostication on a future state of affairs, so nobody considers techniques for refuting “arguments” based on it.  Because what could those possibly even be?

Annnnnd that’s where the Left gets you, because ALL Leftist “arguments” are tautologies.  We’ve all had a good laugh at things like “false consciousness,” or statements like “Sarah Palin isn’t a real woman.”  They’re impossible to take seriously — Sarah Palin is, obviously and undeniably, a woman — so we don’t take them seriously, and we assume the people making them don’t either.  But they do, my friends, they do.  If you don’t believe me, dust off your old Logic 101 textbook and tell me how “Sarah Palin isn’t a real woman” differs from “false consciousness.”  They both run exactly like this:

All women (X) are pro-abortion (Y).  Sarah Palin is not pro-abortion; therefore, Sarah Palin is not a woman.  Or, all capitalist societies (X) are miserable (Y).  The United States is not miserable; therefore, the United States isn’t capitalist… but since that statement contradicts the Scriptures, it must be the case that the undeniably-capitalist United States only seems not-miserable… false consciousness, comrade.

I know, I know, my brain hurts too, and once again, that’s how they get you.  It’s almost impossible for a cognitively normal person to “think” this way, and because the falsity is so glaring, so painful, we assume that we must be missing something.  Maybe if we just immerse ourselves in all that jargon — the “modes of production,” “intersectionality,” and whatnot — we’ll find out what we’re missing, so that we can go back and plug the proper terms into the deduction and prove to the Left that they’re being illogical.

It won’t work, comrades, because it can’t.  You can’t argue against a tautology.*  What ends up happening, of course, is that poring over their Scriptures infects you with Social Justice Toxoplasma, exactly as it’s designed to do.  The Buckley, neocon, National Review brand of “conservatism” is really just Leftism with a few tax cuts attached, because they tried to argue with the Left.

What we need to do is to steal the tactics and worldview of the New Left.

Whatever you want to call them now — the New New Left, the CultMarx Cult, the Cathedral, the Poz — the inmates have been in charge of the asylum for generations.  They’re in the same position the Old Right was back when this whole business started — they’ve been in power so long that they take “being in power” as the natural state of affairs.  Not only don’t they have any arguments for their positions, they don’t know that there ever were any, because they don’t see it in terms of “positions” and “arguments.”  This is just the way things are, and anyone who disagrees is some kind of “hater” — mentally ill; not to be taken seriously; to be treated, confined, or shot, as the situation dictates.

Rules for Radicals is a great book; we should carry it around the way the Red Guards carried Quotations from Chairman Mao.  We should read up on Cloward-Piven, and put it into action.  Cloward-Piven is an attempt to overload American social services by signing up as many people as possible, in order to collapse the economy and spark The Revolution.  Thanks to Sen. Warren, aka Little Rounding Error, aka Pico-hontas, we now know that 1/1024th Mesoamerican (not even actual American Indian!) DNA is sufficient to claim all the Affirmative Action perks our Native brothers are entitled to.  Let’s get every single college student in America on full scholarship — adios, higher ed bubble!

Don’t get caught up in heavy theorizing.  Don’t worry about what comes after The Revolution.  Do what the New Left did — at worst, you’ll end up with tenure at an Ivy League law school and have your name tossed around as a potential Democratic presidential candidate.

 

 

*Seriously, if you read nothing else in your life, read David Stove’s “Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story,” Parts I and II (available in The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies, and yes, you’ll need to buy it, because you need to read both).  Marxism is Idealism; Idealism rests — totally, completely, entirely — on a false “deduction” from a tautology (from “we can only know things as we can know them” to “we can’t know things as they are in themselves”).  As every single flavor of Leftist nonsense is based on Marxism, this destroys every intellectual pretension the Left has ever had.

UPDATE:  If you’re curious about how one lousy little tautology could generate so much murderous nonsense, I’ve attempted to lay it out on a separate page, here.  I can’t do justice to either Stove’s thought nor his prose, but on the upside, it’s free.

Loading Likes...

The Medium is the Message

I have a naive view of art.  I think it’s made up of two things, the medium and the message.  The medium is the artist’s materials plus his skill.  The message is whatever idea he’s trying to convey with his art.  Simplistic, yes, but it lets you talk about art without resorting to what the British charmingly call “art bollocks.”*

Great art, for instance, doesn’t have to be particularly original to be great.  This

is about as conventional as they come, in both medium (paint on a ceiling) and message (that God loves us).  It’s only the artist’s great skill that makes it great art.  On the other hand, this

has an even simpler medium, but more complex message (Seurat is trying to give us the “out of the corner of your eye” view, which points out just how fuzzy, temporary, and context-dependent our perceptions really are).  It’s great art because it highlights something fundamental about the human condition.  Do all our impressions work this way?

It works in reverse, too.  Just as great art doesn’t have to be a heartbreaking work of staggering genius to be great, so bad art fails not from lack of skill, but because the artist’s skill is used in the service of something false.  That’s why you can spot “socialist realism” a mile away, though tremendous effort and real talent went into its production.

Vasily Orlov, The Nature Hunt (1950)

That’s not bad art because of bad technique, or because the subjects are unattractive.  It’s not even overtly political.  And yet, everything about that painting is wrong.  It’s just false, and you can see it everywhere — the figures’ expressions, their postures, the field, the flowers, even the sunlight seems just slightly off.  It’s like something your grandma would paint after a few courses at the Y — the old bird’s got talent, but doesn’t have anything to say other than “kids were cuter back in my day.”

Which brings us to now, when the medium IS the message, as Marshall McLuhan famously said — the stuff on TV is true, because it’s on TV.  Seriously, try it for yourself.  Have you ever made a sustained effort to not watch TV?  I don’t mean “turn off the idiot box at home” (though that’s a great idea too); I mean don’t watch a glowing screen, period.  It’s nearly impossible.  TVs are everywhere, and they’re magnetic.  Even if you yourself have Catonian self-control, go to the bar and watch others interact.  There are always TVs on at the bar, and no matter what people are doing — drowning their sorrows in whiskey, arguing sports or politics, trying to get laid — you’ll see everyone’s eyes constantly flicking up to the TV in the corner.

Then watch the TV itself.  Being in a bar actually helps here, because you want the sound to be off.  TV is a passive medium — if ever the family really did sit around and watch shows together, those days are long past.  TV is just background noise now, and the people who do the programming most certainly know  it.  You’ll get the message much better if you’re not distracted by the content (McLuhan said the content is just like a piece of raw meat a burglar brings to distract a guard dog).  Is the presenter grim-faced and serious?  Whitey did something bad. Is he chipper and upbeat?  Get ready for a fluff piece about a Magic Negro.  Are there only graphics, words, on the screen of the most visually-dependent medium of all?  The Diversity did something bad.

Which suggests a wonderful line of counterattack.  Betcha didn’t see that coming!!!

Art imitates life, remember?  (For those who remember their Aristotle, this is mimesis (I had to look it up)).  Think of SJWs — by their nose rings ye shall know them.  Whether it’s mimesis or Marshall McLuhan who’s ultimately responsible, the whole SJW “look” is ugliness-for-the-sake-of-ugliness.  The nose-ringers themselves don’t think this, of course; the message they’re trying to convey is that they’re dangerous nonconformist rebels.  But see above — Orlov’s intended message was “communism rules;” the thought that picture actually invokes is along the lines of “I wonder who the Kommissar will shoot first if their flower baskets don’t meet the targets of the Five Year Plan.”

Now, take Herr Sturmbannführer** up there.  That’s a serious, dangerous-looking man, and not just because he’s got an Iron Cross and two lightning bolts on his collar.  He’d still be a panty-dropper even if he were dressed like your typical dude-bro goober.  You see where I’m going with this….

The medium is the message.  I don’t care what Trigglypuff has to say.  She may have all the facts, data, and logic in the world — I know, I know, but let’s stipulate — and I’m still not going to listen, because she looks like Trigglypuff.  Meanwhile, Herr Sturmbannführer impresses me despite myself.  I know what he’s about — one does not rise to high rank in the Waffen-SS without committing a few war crimes — but I can’t help it, I’m curious.  How does a man like this believe something like that?

We need to use this!  Our message is right; our look should be tight.  We can’t all look like panzer commanders, but we don’t have to — SJWs are such deliberately grotesque slobs, all we have to do is dress like we respect ourselves.  Watch our language and habits — don’t get drunk in public, don’t walk around munching on a greasy hamburger, don’t cuss, and for pete’s sake never wear flip flops, tank tops, or sportsball jerseys.

Meanwhile, the standard rebuttal to any and all Leftist hyperventilating on Twitter, Facebook, whatever should be nothing more than: Posting a picture of the hyperventilator.  Your Ace of Spades types, for instance, spend lots of hours online arguing with Matt Yglesias types.  This is Matt Yglesias:

’nuff said.  The medium is the message.

 

 

*The author of that piece, David Thompson, has an excellent blog.
** Yes, I looked it up.  This is, after all, the Internet — I don’t want to get 45 comments from people who can’t see the point because I accidentally called that guy a lieutenant colonel or something.
Loading Likes...

The Hard Truths

Since I just don’t have the time to put together a Friday Book Club — sorry — maybe we can all kick in on this: A list of the hard truths.

I don’t mean stuff like “Blacks commit way disproportionately more crime” or “the 19th Amendment was a big mistake.”  While those are true enough, they’re also common knowledge — why do you think the PTB go to such great lengths to suppress any mention of them?  For “hard truths” I mean things that we ourselves — the students of History, the “conservatives,” the saturnine — have a hard time looking at straight on, and indeed try very hard to forget.  Stuff like this:

Humans can’t handle abundance.  One of my favorite “jokes” is that I’m the only guy I know who really believes in evolution.  By which I mean: If you grant that we humans are, in fact, great apes — that we share 96% of our DNA with chimps — then 96% of our behavior follows.  Any group of humans will invariably behave like an equivalent-sized group of monkeys, because we are monkeys.

Monkeys, like all lower animals, are hardwired for life on the ragged edge of survival.  Malthus got it right, back in the 18th century – a given population will always expand to the limits of its food supply, and that explains the behavior of both the population and its individual members.  Dogs, for example, will breed any time there’s a female in heat, the males fighting it out among themselves for access.  Dogs will eat until they vomit, then go back and eat the vomit.

Humans work the same way.  But there’s one crucial difference — while every other population has hard limits on its food supply, ours is effectively limitless.  Ask any overweight person (these days, that’s pretty much all of us) who has ever seriously tried a calorie reduction diet.  It’s almost impossible, and not just because our foods are packed with high-calorie, glucose-spiking artificial crap like corn syrup.  Even if you go all natural, you find yourself overeating, because we have 24/7/365 access to all kinds of perfectly natural products that don’t suit us, and screw us up.  Yeah yeah, it’s “healthy,” “natural” food… but do you know how much sugar is in a cup of strawberries?

This isn’t some kind of Paleo diet manifesto.  I don’t care what you eat (and I myself am not the paragon of optimized nutrition).  I’m trying to point out that abundance is pathological in itself.  Because we’re just monkeys, our systems follow a kind of nutritional Say’s Law — supply creates its own demand, such that we give ourselves diabetes eating nothing but “natural” fruits from climates we’re not genetically adapted to.

And it’s not just our food.  Our environment, too, is far too secure for our firmware.  We’re wired for threat detection.  So wired, in fact, that city dwellers who go camping often freak themselves out in the quiet of the forest — did that bush just move?!?  Your threat-detection hardware can’t be shut off, so when you take away the constant barrage of stimulus in the city, you actually start to hallucinate threats.

In other words, the abundance of our environment has screwed up our eustress.  “Eustress” is beneficial stress, the kind that makes you stronger, and it applies to everything in your body.  Lifting weights is eustress on your muscles; solving math problems is eustress for your mind.  Everything about our biological life is designed around maximizing eustress — change your material conditions, and your body (and mind!) will adapt.  Humans are amazingly hard to kill — even in concentration camps, the numerical majority of those not killed outright by the guards survived to tell the tale.

That adaptability, too, is hardwired.  We can’t shut off our eustress-maximization mechanism — “life force,” “will to power,” whatever you choose to call it — any more than we can consciously, voluntarily shut off our hearts.  If there’s no stress available in our environment to eustress against, we’ll make some…

…and that’s modern life right there.  Again, look at the Kavanaugh circus.  The only thing wrong with those people is that they’re bored.  Feminism didn’t exist in the 19th century, simply — and it really is this simple — because sex often resulted in conception, and conception opened up the very real risk of painful death.  Add infant mortality to the mix — a 1 in 2 chance your child will die before the age of five concentrates the mind wonderfully — and you’ve got all the stress, eu- and the other kind, that anyone could ever need.  Only barren spinsters from rich families could afford to worry about politics back then; now we’re all barren spinsters.

The comments are open.

Loading Likes...

Permanent Revolution

By the (self-chosen) end of his life, the late great David Stove, one of the fiercest defenders free thought ever had, was arguing in all sincerity that expressing what he called “the equality opinion” should be a death penalty offense.  Admit that “society” will always be “unjust” so long as one person has more than another, and the whole catalog of totalitarian horrors follows, by necessity, as surely as ice follows from water and freezing temperatures.  He mostly meant “equality” in the material sense (this was c.1991), but even then the Left was making the Harrison Bergeron implications obvious — more looks, more brains, more talent, more drive, more self control, whatever it is, we shall never have Social Justice while anyone has more.

He was right.  A Stove-ian look at the history of philosophy forces one conclusion: The whole of Western social thought, stem to stern, top to bottom, is an attempt to change Envy from a vice to a virtue.  (This includes theology).  And the reason for it is simple: Philosophers have less.  Less looks, less self control, less money, less power, and often less brains and drive, too, and they damn well know it.  The only thing they have more of is talk.

Up to about 1500 or so, this didn’t matter, since nobody who had more ever listened to philosophers.  But by 1500 or so, European society was prosperous enough that lots of people had more, such that it was obvious that having more is not due to God’s special favor (which used to mean “blue blood”), but is largely chance.  As the now unjustifiably obscure philosopher Rodericus Stewartus once said, “Some guys have all the luck,” and instead of taking that as proof of God’s special favor like the bluebloods did, your Martin Luthers and John Calvins …

…well, ok, they took it as proof of God’s special favor, too, but they also — in a leap of “logic” that makes sense only to them and modern-day Leftists — concluded that God’s special favor can be purchased by saying the right things.  How do you know you’re among the Elect?  By having more… then feeling the overwhelming urge to lecture everyone about how sinful having more is (see the famous Codex Murus for examples).

But the philosophers still aren’t satisfied, because while the guys who listen to them have more, all right — that part of the doctrine’s rock solid — they themselves still have less.  And that doesn’t follow, because not only do they say the right things, they’re the ones telling everyone else what to say!  But when you point that out to the guys who have more — those Puritan merchants who just bought Manhattan for a handful of beads, for instance — they tell you to go get a job, parchment breath.

I’m sure y’all have noticed the inverse relationship between material prosperity and intellectual rigor, so fast forward a few generations.  Now it seems that “having more” is actually the default condition of mankind.  And yet, the philosophers still have less.  Which can only mean: There is an active conspiracy against the philosophers.  It’s the ____’s fault we don’t have more.  Fill in the blank with whatever you like: Jews, Capitalists, Aristocrats, Designated Hitters, it’s all the same, only the names have changed.

And now we come to the heart of the problem: Material prosperity produces these people, in the same way Stove says “the equality opinion” produces secret police and slave labor camps.  Indeed, it’s the exact same process, because the idea of The ___ Conspiracy simply is “the equality opinion.”  One’s expressed intellectually, the other emotionally, but it’s the same thing.  Objective considerations of emergent historical phenomena compel us to conclude, comrades, that first we must kill all the Kulaks, and then we shall have Utopia.

The only social policy question, then, is: What to do with these people?  A certain level of material prosperity will produce them.  It’ nature’s way of keeping the balance — just as a predator or a pathogen always evolves to kill off an over-abundant grazer, so human over-abundance results in an intellectual pathogen to keep us from amusing ourselves to death.

That’s what college was for, back in the days — a containment room for intellectual pathogens.  When Harvard was just a four-year sleepaway camp for the sons of privilege, letting them sow their wild oats before joining the family firm on Wall Street, it didn’t matter that all Junior’s professors were moron Marxists.  That was probably still the case into the early 90s, when everyone understood what “middle class values” meant — deconstruction and the like are fun to play around with over a few bong hits, but they’re useless out in the ‘burbs, so it doesn’t matter that all the “English” classes at Big State only study Derrida and Zambezi war chants.

The professors got to think of themselves as “revolutionaries,” and we agreed to let them, with our fingers crossed behind our backs — yeah yeah, “revolution,” but only in the sense of spinning around and around and around, constantly chasing your head up your own ass, going nowhere.

But just as material abundance and intellectual rigor vary inversely, so prosperity and pathology vary directly.  Now everyone goes to college, and people really believe this shit.  For proof I give you the Kavanaugh hearings.  That’s a freshman “diversity” seminar, comrades, at any college in the land.  And now we’re on the brink of civil war, though everyone with the power to stop it is too flabby and coddled and stupid to realize it.

What’s to be done with these people, should we ever decide to give things like “indoor plumbing” and “living past 35” another go?  David Stove said we should shoot ’em all on sight.  I’m really hoping someone has a better idea….

Loading Likes...

Rage III: The Dying of the Light

The most important is also the shortest, because by this point you either agree or disagree.

The Cat Fanciers had an ideology.  It’s not hard to find.  They had a philosophy, too.  Nobody’s ever heard of Giovanni Gentile, and you might want to ask yourself why not, but it doesn’t matter.  The point is, there was enough intellectual heft behind Cat Fancy that even serious, heavyweight people could buy into it, in full public view.  The Black Cat Militia — the fanciest Cat Fanciers of all —  was full of professors, doctors, lawyers, industrialists; far from mindless thugs, they were better educated than average, with better degrees (up to and including PhDs in real subjects) the higher up the ranks one went.

[If it helps, think of how many serious, heavyweight people were in the Freemasons, well into the 20th century.  Did they believe all the ooga-booga stuff about Masonic ritual extending back to the time of the Pharaohs?  Of course not, but they took the ritual aspects seriously, because whatever else it was (and is), Freemasonry is a brotherhood.  Brotherhoods depend on ritual.  So did your average obersturmbannfuhrer really believe all that junk about World Ice Theory, Atlantis, the power of Norse runes, etc.?  I really doubt it.  But the “brotherhood” part?  Oh yes; to the bitter end].

What really held them together, though, was an aesthetic. A vision.  The only reason the Cat Fanciers’ techno-anarcho-retro-futurism seems weird to us is the same reason nobody’s heard of Giovanni Gentile (or Ishiwara Kanji and the kokutai): They lost the war.  It’s no weirder than Karl Marx’s techno-anarcho-retro-futurism, and the only reason “Marxist” isn’t a swear word right now is because the same professors and media figures who were so hot and bothered for Cat Fancy (esp. the Italian variant) switched sides once it became obvious how the war was going to turn out.  Stalin’s crimes dwarf Mustache Guy’s by an order of magnitude (and Mao has Uncle Joe beat by a country mile), but wild horses still couldn’t drag an admission out of most “educated” people that mass murder is a feature, not a bug, in the ideology.

For a modern techno-anarcho-retro-futuro thing, I suggest mythologizing the Fifites (already mostly done, I realize), combined with end-of-the-Empire conservationist paranoia:

The light really is dying, comrades, all over the former West.  The glories of belief, of science, of the very concepts “logic” and “reason,” are being pushed back into darkness, not just by the Marching Morons, but by smart people who owe everything in their lives to Western Civ.  These “people” — decadent and corrupt enough to make an Ottoman pasha blush — would rather see the whole world burn than endure the tedium of their sheltered, cossetted little lives one second longer.

Resist them, or die in a nuclear fire.  Why on earth do you think they’re so desperate to arm the Iranian mullahs?  It serves no geostrategic purpose.  It’s guaranteed to destabilize the region, and that, comrades, is the entire point.  If they can’t goad us into a war with Russia over Syria, then give nukes to the mullahs.  They’ll use them — you know it, I know it, Obama and Hillary and Soros and John Kerry and John McCain and every faceless bureaucrat at the EU knows it.  Bibi Netanyahu certainly knows it, which is why they’ll strike first, and the SJWs can crow about it for the 59.3 seconds it’ll take between that and the arrival of Russian / Chinese ICBMs in our skies.  They’ll die, too, but at least they’ll die smug — to the SJW, that’s ultimate victory.

Rage, comrades, rage against the dying of the light.  If you can’t fight — and not all of us can — preserve.  Be an Irish monk in the Dark Ages, hoarding up humanity’s precious inheritance against the possibility, however remote, that we might crawl out of the caves again.  But if you can, fight!  The human race depends on it.*

 

*obviously this is my thought experiment example of how such a mythology might be created.  I advocate nothing.  All of this is strictly hypothetical.
Loading Likes...

Rage Part II: Mythology

In addition to the camaraderie of the Front, the Cat Fanciers had another great movement builder: Mythology.  Forget (((you-know-who))), for the same reason we’re calling the folks under discussion the “Cat Fanciers:” Naming names just clouds people’s minds.  Let’s stipulate, for the rest of the series, that (((you-know-who))) are irrelevant.  It’s not just possible, but really easy, to construct the Cat Fanciers’ basic movement-building technique without any reference to them.  Here goes:

Regardless of whose hand moved the knife, the stab-in-the-back seemed very real at the time.  Most veterans took it for granted that international finance capital — which for the majority was NOT synonymous with (((you-know-who))) — was behind both the start and the end of the war (Lenin agreed, which is one of the many reasons so many veterans went Red after the war).  It wasn’t true — nothing in human affairs is that simple — but it’s an easy-to-understand explanation that meshes with a lot of the obvious facts on the ground.

I trust I don’t have to spell out how “the fat cats sold us out!” applies to our current situation.

On its own, something like the stab-in-the-back is a necessary but not sufficient condition for building a revolutionary movement, because it doesn’t suggest anything to replace the fat cats.  This is why Bakunin-style anarchist movements always fail — they’re great with the “first, we kill all the ____” part, but they’ve got nothing for “and then we shall have Utopia, in which ____.”  It’s the same problem all those chiliastic sects had back in the Middle Ages — they filled in the blank with “Jesus returns and the world ends.”  People are stupid about utopian fantasies — cf. Socialism’s current appeal, 100+ million corpses notwithstanding — but it’s got to be small-u.*

What you need is a kind of two-way myth.  You have to mythologize both the past and the future, such that both are really just two sides of the same myth.  That’s why Karl Marx’s rare pronouncements about what the Communist future would look like invariably invoked an idealized past.  Rousseau gets my vote for The Original Commie, if only because he expressed it best:

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

Marx devoted umpteen pages to “proving” that all of human history was just a run-up to the industrial revolution, which was the precursor of Communism, which was really just a return to Rousseau’s eden.  It sounded all precise and scientific — Leftists have claimed to have a monopoly on Science for going on 300 years now — but it was really just a prelapsarian fantasy.

So, too, with the Cat Fanciers.  They, too, fucking loved science, but only in the service of a higher Romanticism.  Their vision of a Cat Fancy future was a series of all-but-medieval market towns, linked by autobahns and defended by peasant farmers with air support.  No, really — that’s what the Black Cat Militia was expressly designed to do.  Lenin said Communism is “soviet power plus electrification.”  Mustache Guy wasn’t that pithy, but “feudalism plus autobahns” is a pretty good summary of their weird futuro-retro-techno thing.

Here’s how it works:

Part III soon.

 

 

*Lenin didn’t really have an answer either, of course, for what goes in the second blank; Mustache Guy didn’t either, for that matter.  But they had big huge books that sure seemed to be offering an answer, and that was enough.
Loading Likes...

Wearing the White Hat

The last post was fairly abstract about movement building.  Let me illustrate.

College football programs change their uniforms all the time.  They almost never change their logos and color scheme, no matter what pressure is put  on them.  This is because football is central to the college experience.  The teams themselves mostly lose money, as we noted yesterday, but they’re loss leaders – they  build the brand.1  This is also how ranked schools have creampuffs to mollywhop every opening weekend.  Yeah, Cupcake Tech gets paid to travel to Big State and get stomped, but have you ever wondered why the hell Cupcake Tech has a football team in the first place?  You can’t run an entire program from a single game’s paycheck.  Again, it’s all about the brand — Cupcake Tech gets stomped by Big State on national tv.

What, you thought the faculty decided that athletics is a central part of a well-rounded education?  Profs hate sports in general, and football in particular, with the heat of a thousand suns.2  All that toxic masculinity!  I promise you: Every fall, all the faculty loudmouths (that is to say, the entire faculty) at every college in America get together and go down to the college president’s office to complain about the football program.  And every fall, the president tells them to get bent, not because he’s a football fan — college presidents are eggheads, too — but because he’s the one guy on campus who sees the bottom line.  I’m not exaggerating too much when I say that without its annual stomping by Big State, Cupcake Tech would pretty much cease to exist.

No, really.  If “athletic success” can increase applications 30% in two years, simply being on tv with the big boys must do something.

“The primary form of mass media advertising by academic institutions in the United States is, arguably, through their athletic programs,” says Harvard Business School Assistant Professor of marketing Doug J. Chung.

That’s what I want everyone to keep in mind: The brand-building effect.  Let’s say you’re a parent who doesn’t want to send your snowflake off to Big State — you bought into the bullshit about “smaller class sizes” and whatnot (and it is mostly bullshit, but that’s a rant for another day).  Where do you start looking?  Well, there was that college on tv the other day… they had a cool logo, nice colors….

The specifics don’t matter.  At all.  Snowflake doesn’t know what she’s going to major in, or what she’ll do with that degree once she gets it.  Nor will the first three or four years on campus clarify it much (what, you thought “undeclared” was just for freshmen? HA!!).  But I promise you: Snowflake will have all the gear.  It’s an almost perfectly inverse relationship, in fact — the less you know why you’re in college in the first place, the crazier your devotion to the school mascot.  (Yeah, sure, it’s anecdotal, but I’ve got a lot of anecdotes).  Snowflake will be a Cupcake Tech Fightin’ Pastry until her dying day.  And since the student body nationwide is close to 60% female

Let’s apply that to Our Thing.  The very first step in building a successful movement is letting the world know your movement exists.  This seems obvious, but read the biography of any successful revolutionary — it’s littered with alphabet soup, the clunky acronyms of a zillion low-rent “movements” that never got out of somebody’s basement apartment for lack of publicity.  Here again, the specifics don’t matter.  At all.  The first, and most pressing goal, of a Direct Action Group — even before “getting a better name, for pete’s sake” — is to create the impression of ubiquity.  Turn wearing a white ballcap into a fashion statement.  This shouldn’t be all that hard to accomplish — see “undergraduates, female majority of,” above.  College girls are the most conformist creatures on God’s green earth, with high school girls running a close second.

Again, because it’s critical: The specifics don’t matter.  They don’t need to know — indeed, definitely should NOT know — that a white Pats ballcap (or whatever) means you’re part of #TheRealResistance (or whatever).  That comes later.  Your cadre should know…

… because that’s our white hat’s second critical function at the start: Signalling.  This is old-school spycraft, right out of the Fifties.  The eighteen fifites, which is why it is will be so effective in the modern high tech urban surveillance environment.  “Affects and effects” were standard communication techniques for secret agents.  How do you know who your contact is, since basic operational security means you’ve never seen him before?  Ahhh, he’s the chap with the red flower in his left lapel, holding yesterday’s copy of the Telegraph in his left hand, leaning against a lamp post at Euston Station between 12:30 and 12:45 (he’ll recognize you by your white hatband).  If the meet’s on, he’ll rapidly open and close his paper; if it’s off, he’ll pretend to drop his pocket watch.

So: Are you really in #TheRealResistance, or just some trend-surfing poseur?  Ahh, you have a shamrock pin on the left side of the brim.  You’re a Cell Leader Third Class in the local Organization.  Combine the two for extra fun — get the trend surfers wearing “pieces of flair” on their hats like that dork in Office Space.

You really just want to be able to recognize your fellow Fight Clubbers, but if these nimrods want to volunteer as camouflage, let them!  If your Basic College Girl has at least fifteen pieces of flair on her hat, you can stealth-transmit half of Atlas Shrugged.  

Obviously I’m being more than a little facetious — obviously — but “piggybacking” on a trend that you yourself started is incredibly effective.  Witness the lulz with the OK sign, which was openly a prank from day one.  It’s to the point now where undercover shitlords really could signal to each other that way.  It’s got plausible deniability out the wazoo, everything from “do I look like I follow internet memes?” to “seriously, that’s really a thing?” to “haha quit joking” to “I’m standing up to the Alt-Right — take back our hand gestures!”  But if the other guy flashes OK back at you, now you have much to discuss….

Alas, the plausible deniability requirement means Our Thing’s “uniform” really will have to be something common.  I take a backseat to no man in my disdain for poseurs, and while all modern fashion is stupid and it’s getting worse as we careen closer to real-life Idiocracy, creating a “look” from scratch is too risky — you’ll get “outed” before it turns into a trend.  It’d be easy enough to get bespoke gear made — the local screen printing shop can set you up with an all-white hat with any logo you choose — but it totally compromises operational security.  As does picking some minor league team’s gear — while nobody will find it suspicious if the New England Patriots suddenly have a lot more fans (particularly if they win another Super Bowl), a bunch of y’all running around Dallas wearing the hats of the worst team in the New Hampshire Co-Rec Softball Weekend Beer League’s weakest division might raise a few eyebrows, even at such an enstupidated institution as The Feeb.

In short: Start thinking like a dumb, mal-educated, hormonal college girl.  What would she wear, and why?  Use that, and once it gets good and popular….

THEN it’s time for the big reveal.  Or, you know, the microscopically small reveal, because you want to maintain plausible deniability at all times.  You want it juuuuuuust well-known enough that it’s slightly “risky” to be seen wearing one. Take a lesson from the so-called “EdgyCons” here.  Whatever you think of their message, guys like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, etc. make really nice livings at the very edges of “respectable” opinion.  A certain kind of person would find you slightly dangerous if you carried a copy of 12 Rules of Life around.  If they asked you, though, you could just as easily say “it’s a research project; I know he’s a horrible badthinker, I want to see just how bad it really is, to make sure nice sweet people like you who love Big Brother don’t get sucked in.”

Obviously you’ll get a lot more of a certain type of poseur with this tactic, and that’s ok.  For one, they’re a fertile recruiting ground, especially the ones who want to get in your face about it.  Goebbels bragged he could turn a Red (Communist) into a Brown (Nazi) in two weeks, because both Commies and Nazis are easily excitable losers who are already worked up about politics, so all you have to do is shift the emphasis a little bit (he only implied that last part).

For two, imagine the reaction of the kind of hysterical wanker who gets worked up by the OK sign, Pepe the Frog, and the rest.  If they start thinking that maybe, just maybe, an all-white Pats hat is the uniform of the Neo-Neo-Klan, then isn’t all Pats gear suspect?   Hell, isn’t all NFL gear suspect?  I mean, cardinals are well known as the most racist of birds, and that Jacksonville team could’ve picked an all-black jaguar for their logo, but picked the spotted one instead.  Clearly racist.  And don’t get me started about the “Packers” — packing Jews into concentration camps!!!3

Have some fun with it.  So long as it’s plausibly deniable and no none gets hurt, it’s good.  (Or, you know, don’t have fun with it, because all this is purely a thought experiment.  Totally hypothetical).

 

1 The teams that do money make tons of it, and hey, whaddaya know, Oregon — the undisputed world champ of wacky uniform changes — is third on the list.  They started changing their uniforms every week when Nike CEO Phil Knight got involved.  Hey, ya think Phil Knight — the guy who brought Air Jordans to the world — knows a thing or two about building a brand?

2 Yes yes, the “gender studies” people love softball, I’ll give you that.  And field hockey.  But since about 14 total persyns play those, they have no impact on campus life.

3. Again, obviously I’m kidding.  This is 100% satire.  I advocate nothing.  I love Big Brother (in fact, I’m required by my institution’s ethics board to notify you that this — all of it, this whole blog — is all a big experiment in the Department of Sociology.  I’m trying to see just how gullible and manipulable you suckers really are.  I’m With Her, all the way).

 

Loading Likes...