Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Thursday, March 01, 2018
Tonight in Bloodsports
Scottish white nationalist Mark Collett versus alt right fighter Halsey English was tonight's matchup. Luke interviewed Halsey a bit after (Luke and I chat some beforehand):
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Follow the Money
The revolution will have to be monetized.
Diversity is monetized because corporate America sees the growing non-white population as the future. Once the demographic shift in the US was set in motion, business had no choice but to pursue the new non-white consumer dollar. Its long-term planning necessarily became modeled on that population shift. It became invested. And advertising became propaganda for diversity.
Leaving aside the cultural and political forces that brought us here, American business is invested in the diverse future because that's where the consumers will be.
It gladly cooperates with government social engineering, which is itself massively monetized, and its advertising, in appealing directly to minorities over declining and taken-for-granted whites, over-represents them wildly. This poz propaganda (pozprop?) thus reinforces the confidence of the non-white consumers and further demoralizes whites.
Corporate America is invested in diversity because of demographics. But all profit really needs is demographic increase, not replacement. All of this came to mind while watching this from Frame Game Radio:
Regardless of how it got there, Disney remains invested in the diverse new order because that's where the money is. It won't be detached from it unless there's money elsewhere. White identity and reproduction need to be monetized at some point soon for white Americans to rehabilitate themselves as a people.
Recently Team Diversity was alarmed by new projections deferring that Glorious Moment when white America loses majority status by five whole years. A demographic shift accomplished overnight by historical standards--and they're angry and alarmed at this speed bump. Trump is deliberately trying to raise the percentage of the white population!
It wasn't good for morale. On the other hand, it's good (if not huge) for the morale of beleaguered whites. Ten years would be even better. Right now, most whites remain conditioned against explicit racial awareness, and prohibited from speaking in favor of it. But that's changing along with the increasing intensity of anti-white culture that's found a focus point in the "Resistance", itself aroused by the stirrings of white identity that is Trump, which, following the hate spiral back in time, was really produced by long years of anti-white propaganda culminating in the disaster for whites and racial comity in general that was Barack Obama.
Team Diversity points out correctly it matters little because whites aren’t having babies and non-whites are. Right now white Americans who aren't utterly de-sensitized see the projected future before them--as represented by film, television and advertising--as non-white. It's made to seem inevitable. But white cultural identity is taking shape, and it's only a matter of time before someone realizes there's a dollar to be made there.
Implicitly white artists are emerging (against their own wishes), and at least one recent project, Justin Timberlake's "Man of the Woods", appears as, at least, an unashamed celebration of rural white origins.
"Man of the Woods" was panned by critics and called out as problematic by the usual sources, but is proving popular. There's a cultural market out there business is afraid to go after. Diversity remains monetized, but all of a sudden there's...this. Money that has to be left on the table. Whatever the case, Justin Timberlake and any like him need to be encouraged in this direction.
Combining a cultural shift with sensible policies that at least do not subsidize non-white birthrates, would at the very least push that day of demographic reckoning wherein whites slip into a despised plurality farther still into the future. It's worth it just to see the look on their faces.
Who knows, before long, with rehabilitated white birthrates and depressed non-white birthrates, we might even be talking about a demographic shift back. If you will it, it is not a dream, as the man said.
Let the demographic bomb pass through the nation like a pig through a python. You may say I’m a dreamer...
Diversity is monetized because corporate America sees the growing non-white population as the future. Once the demographic shift in the US was set in motion, business had no choice but to pursue the new non-white consumer dollar. Its long-term planning necessarily became modeled on that population shift. It became invested. And advertising became propaganda for diversity.
Leaving aside the cultural and political forces that brought us here, American business is invested in the diverse future because that's where the consumers will be.
It gladly cooperates with government social engineering, which is itself massively monetized, and its advertising, in appealing directly to minorities over declining and taken-for-granted whites, over-represents them wildly. This poz propaganda (pozprop?) thus reinforces the confidence of the non-white consumers and further demoralizes whites.
Corporate America is invested in diversity because of demographics. But all profit really needs is demographic increase, not replacement. All of this came to mind while watching this from Frame Game Radio:
Regardless of how it got there, Disney remains invested in the diverse new order because that's where the money is. It won't be detached from it unless there's money elsewhere. White identity and reproduction need to be monetized at some point soon for white Americans to rehabilitate themselves as a people.
Recently Team Diversity was alarmed by new projections deferring that Glorious Moment when white America loses majority status by five whole years. A demographic shift accomplished overnight by historical standards--and they're angry and alarmed at this speed bump. Trump is deliberately trying to raise the percentage of the white population!
It wasn't good for morale. On the other hand, it's good (if not huge) for the morale of beleaguered whites. Ten years would be even better. Right now, most whites remain conditioned against explicit racial awareness, and prohibited from speaking in favor of it. But that's changing along with the increasing intensity of anti-white culture that's found a focus point in the "Resistance", itself aroused by the stirrings of white identity that is Trump, which, following the hate spiral back in time, was really produced by long years of anti-white propaganda culminating in the disaster for whites and racial comity in general that was Barack Obama.
Team Diversity points out correctly it matters little because whites aren’t having babies and non-whites are. Right now white Americans who aren't utterly de-sensitized see the projected future before them--as represented by film, television and advertising--as non-white. It's made to seem inevitable. But white cultural identity is taking shape, and it's only a matter of time before someone realizes there's a dollar to be made there.
Implicitly white artists are emerging (against their own wishes), and at least one recent project, Justin Timberlake's "Man of the Woods", appears as, at least, an unashamed celebration of rural white origins.
"Man of the Woods" was panned by critics and called out as problematic by the usual sources, but is proving popular. There's a cultural market out there business is afraid to go after. Diversity remains monetized, but all of a sudden there's...this. Money that has to be left on the table. Whatever the case, Justin Timberlake and any like him need to be encouraged in this direction.
Combining a cultural shift with sensible policies that at least do not subsidize non-white birthrates, would at the very least push that day of demographic reckoning wherein whites slip into a despised plurality farther still into the future. It's worth it just to see the look on their faces.
Who knows, before long, with rehabilitated white birthrates and depressed non-white birthrates, we might even be talking about a demographic shift back. If you will it, it is not a dream, as the man said.
Let the demographic bomb pass through the nation like a pig through a python. You may say I’m a dreamer...
Sunday, October 08, 2017
Two Goys and a Jew
Good Torah Talk with the irrepressible iconoclast Luke Ford and Casey the Classicist. Prominent guests next week.
0:15 Sukkot.
2:15 The subject today, Andrew Joyce's essay, The Alt Right and the Homosexual Question.
3:05 Luke opens talking about Dennis Prager's essay from 1989, Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization:
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.8:10 Is heterosexual marriage the basis of society?
This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
14:00 Sexual rage and its role in society.
16:05 Dennis' sexual rage. White Sharia Now.
18:20 More Prager.
It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.
Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies.
There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another's man's wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the "un-sublimated," sex drive can lead to.Prager is right but in the West chastity and sexual morality arise from the same evolutionary pressures that shaped other behaviors. In the West Christianity developed into a relatively strict sexual morality because of the people adopting it, as of course is true for its other aspects.
20:50 A Surviving Remnant.
36:45 Betrayal as an aspect of American life.
39:00 Shouting Africans.
41:30 The amazing turnabout of the AIDS narrative.
46:20 Bad news in the War on Frapping.
49:55 Our senior masturbation correspondent Casey reports on Harvey Weinstein.
1:26:15 Aunt Mary Wants You. The problem of homosexual recruitment.
1:28:48 Luke riles up the powerful.
1:31:40 Paddock's motivation.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
What's in a Name?
In denying Robert Lee a desirable assignment because his name incidentally causes a (questionable) racial offense between two groups, neither of which he belongs to, did ESPN violate civil rights law?
Lee is discriminated against by default: Asian man can't do this (granted, very particular, silly-ass) thing, because it would constitute an offense upon blacks by whites. Well, I would argue, just what did Mr Lee (a venerable Chinese name, which must not be other-ized) do wrong? How is White Supremacy his fault?
Absurd as it is, it's just a unique manifestation of a daily occurrence: Asian guy gets shunted aside by the Diversity Express. It's all perfectly consistent with the current diversity zeitgeist; it's just the law hasn't caught up yet, perhaps.
Presumably a white man named Robert Lee would have been denied the assignment, sooner and with greater trepidation. In the current frenzy they might've caught it and not assigned him in the first place, sparing themselves the embarrassment--but they know now; we can rest assured ESPN will avoid entirely such potential mass microaggressions, and we'll be spared the terror of such as a Jeff Davis calling University of Kentucky games.
But--would have a black have been denied the Virginia gig? I'm not so sure--and I'm certain if he was denied the gig, he would have a case, for which he would easily find an experienced attorney. Is there any doubt black Robert E Lee (the E is for Eazy) would have a case? It's silly in concept but sinister in practice: under the guise of fairness we're carving out more privileged spaces, such as professional opportunities, for favored ("protected") groups.
Whites are being robbed of their national and cultural patrimony as well as their fair shot through merit. Asians, alone among major ethnic or racial types, share with them that second outrage. Robert Lee getting shunted aside by the Diversity Express is standard practice. It happens all day every day, in less comic ways.
There is a message here, to Asians and other non-black minorities, about the hierarchy of grievance; they must know their place. ESPN and others genuinely take for granted their prosperous, law abiding and boring Asian countrymen. They are, in the quaint phrase ridiculously applied to black Americans, "invisible". In the language of critical theory, our elite routinely "otherizes" Asians in this way. The undeniable message for Asians is you don't count in this context.
What does the law say?
As we all know under Title VII a "disproportionately negative effect" of otherwise "neutral" policy is how troublesome objective employer requirements, like IQ tests, are outlawed because of their dispareate negative impact on, usually, blacks.
Clearly Lee demonstrates a disproportionate negative effect on his own protected class, Asians, by policy--but is it "neutral"? What does that mean in this context? And if ESPN had to make this argument in court--that exceptional policy in deference to black feelz is "neutral"--well, I'd just like to hear it, that's all.
Lee is discriminated against by default: Asian man can't do this (granted, very particular, silly-ass) thing, because it would constitute an offense upon blacks by whites. Well, I would argue, just what did Mr Lee (a venerable Chinese name, which must not be other-ized) do wrong? How is White Supremacy his fault?
Absurd as it is, it's just a unique manifestation of a daily occurrence: Asian guy gets shunted aside by the Diversity Express. It's all perfectly consistent with the current diversity zeitgeist; it's just the law hasn't caught up yet, perhaps.
Presumably a white man named Robert Lee would have been denied the assignment, sooner and with greater trepidation. In the current frenzy they might've caught it and not assigned him in the first place, sparing themselves the embarrassment--but they know now; we can rest assured ESPN will avoid entirely such potential mass microaggressions, and we'll be spared the terror of such as a Jeff Davis calling University of Kentucky games.
But--would have a black have been denied the Virginia gig? I'm not so sure--and I'm certain if he was denied the gig, he would have a case, for which he would easily find an experienced attorney. Is there any doubt black Robert E Lee (the E is for Eazy) would have a case? It's silly in concept but sinister in practice: under the guise of fairness we're carving out more privileged spaces, such as professional opportunities, for favored ("protected") groups.
Whites are being robbed of their national and cultural patrimony as well as their fair shot through merit. Asians, alone among major ethnic or racial types, share with them that second outrage. Robert Lee getting shunted aside by the Diversity Express is standard practice. It happens all day every day, in less comic ways.
There is a message here, to Asians and other non-black minorities, about the hierarchy of grievance; they must know their place. ESPN and others genuinely take for granted their prosperous, law abiding and boring Asian countrymen. They are, in the quaint phrase ridiculously applied to black Americans, "invisible". In the language of critical theory, our elite routinely "otherizes" Asians in this way. The undeniable message for Asians is you don't count in this context.
What does the law say?
Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.
The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. The laws enforced by EEOC also prohibit an employer from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older, if the policies or practices at issue are not based on a reasonable factor other than age."[D]iscrimination in every aspect of employment" is as broad as it is clear.
As we all know under Title VII a "disproportionately negative effect" of otherwise "neutral" policy is how troublesome objective employer requirements, like IQ tests, are outlawed because of their dispareate negative impact on, usually, blacks.
Clearly Lee demonstrates a disproportionate negative effect on his own protected class, Asians, by policy--but is it "neutral"? What does that mean in this context? And if ESPN had to make this argument in court--that exceptional policy in deference to black feelz is "neutral"--well, I'd just like to hear it, that's all.
It is illegal for an employer to make decisions about job assignments and promotions based on an employee's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, an employer may not give preference to employees of a certain race when making shift assignments and may not segregate employees of a particular national origin from other employees or from customers.
An employer may not base assignment and promotion decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
It seems ESPN is guilty at least of name discrimination. `Sunday, August 13, 2017
Today in Dispossession
Yesterday at the annual Netroots Nation conference a white candidate for the Democratic nomination for Georgia governor was "de-platformed", in-the-parlance-of-our-time, when a gang of black activists surrounded her and shouted her down, demanding we "trust black women."
Stacey Evans is a state House representative running for governor against Stacey Abrams, Who Is Black, Peace Be Upon Her (as well as national party support). Whatever goodwill White Stacey has in the bank won't be available for withdrawal for the time being, maybe forever.
As for her part, Black Stacey is Totally Cool with what happened to Becky:
I suspect a lot of the political hatred for white women on the left is rationalized resentment of white women by black women, going unchallenged. Whatever the case right now white women are sinking conceptually in the Democratic hierarchy. As "white" becomes increasingly negative, that sort of half-share of it they were allowed as allies gets heavier; and while having a vagina is still applied like a premium the same way as for ethnicity, black women deploying the double-premium of sex-race cancel them out, ethnic men cancel them out, and the remaining white men against whom it is a trump card are only going to grow scarcer.
White Democratic women are left only with the whiteness they've worked so hard to stigmatize.
Hillary Clinton and now Elizabeth Warren have abandoned young white women in their embrace of identity politics. Within the Democratic Party the betrayal of younger whites by aging boomers plays out just as it does in society and politics as a whole. White women are being cut out of the deal in the Democratic Party--is this what your feminist grandmother signed on for?--as part of white people being cut out of the deal in America--is this really what your liberal grandparents signed on for?
Black Stacey's core advocacy is "voter suppression"--but of course, when you consider the video above. That she's the establishment candidate, on a mission to turn Georgia blue, means the Democratic Party effectively shut down one of their own candidates. Nowadays it's hard to see the outrage for all the outrage.
Her battle with Evans is a skirmish in the broader conflict within the party between altruistic economic progressives who wish to remain on speaking terms with working class whites, and those who see one party rule in identity politics.
The elite has always quietly disdained the working class, now they openly disdain whites (even those thus afflicted); true progressive policies are still anathema to corporate America; thus we arrive at our weird new world marrying the corporate world with radical identity politics in the Democratic Party.
Here Black Stacey and Chris Hayes gloat over Hillary Clinton's upcoming blowout of Donald Trump in the 2016 election and the progress of white demographic displacement (and the importance of white women to come out to vote):
White Stacey presents an alternative to the all-identity-politics-all-the-time model which lost Hillary Clinton the presidency but to which the Democrats remain committed. She'll try to coax across white working class voters with Clintonian (Bill not Hill) rhetoric and maybe even policy.
It's hard not to assume at this point the Democrats don't want to win with whites now, when they still only need wait to safely ignore them and enjoy one party rule. If someone wins by wooing whites now someone else will try it; before you know it, the practice is a legitimate alternative.
But Democrats don't want to stretch to accommodate working class whites when they can just wait them out or, better still, hasten them--and their needs--out. Besides, accommodation of working class whites complicates the demonization of whites--which is non-negotiable (and is directed against working class whites, really, a source of embarrassment if nothing else). There isn't room for both schemes. That's why Stacey Evans and her audience were denied their civil rights; she's messing up the program.
Netroots, began in 2006, was always destined to lose its "grassroots" legitimacy and be co-opted by the Democratic Party. Now the Democratic Party is being co-opted by Black Inc, which holds a majority voting share.
It was at Netroots in 2015 that black protesters shut down Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley when he flubbed the shibboleth "black lives matter." Bernie Sanders refused to be bowed completely and managed to get off his prepared speech.
DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas himself explained why that Aggression Would Not Stand (Bernie's, of course) and in the process gave his own game away a bit:
We see the Left already hopelessly tied in knots by 2015: Moulitsas' "predominately white" readership was scandalized that Bernie Sanders' campaign was predominately white.
That those "Bernie Bros" were volunteering their time out of altruism, working against their self interest for an agenda that devalues them, in contrast to women turning out for Hillary and blacks turning out in racial solidarity, wasn't enough to break the spell (and less so now), so it can't be said, but from the progressive point of view blacks and women aren't pulling their weight.
The contrast of selflessness to selfishness is striking; no one sees it. Not even the Right. We're so conditioned such thoughts cannot form in the mind.
How far down the rabbit hole is Netroots? Does it matter? Netroots is about to become as relevant as The Roots.
Whatever the case, Bernie Sanders got the message after standing up for himself at that 2015 conference. When what looked like a pair of mediocre community college students bore down on him at a podium in Seattle he knew what to do: nothing. Standing bowed with hands clasped in front of him he looked like a penitent.
Black people have been the soul of the Left for a long time. From Bryan Burrough's account of sixties terrorism, Days of Rage:
Either the blacks give the Left its romance and energy, its vitality, and deserve the preeminence it has earned them, or blacks have been hustling whites for about a half a century through the Democratic Party.
But seeing how little we have learned in our fascination with blacks, one thing is undeniable: the more things change, the more they stay the same.`
Stacey Evans is a state House representative running for governor against Stacey Abrams, Who Is Black, Peace Be Upon Her (as well as national party support). Whatever goodwill White Stacey has in the bank won't be available for withdrawal for the time being, maybe forever.
As for her part, Black Stacey is Totally Cool with what happened to Becky:
Abrams said in a statement that she would not “condemn peaceful protest” and that the demonstrators were voicing their concern with Evans’ support for a Republican-led effort to give the state new powers over struggling schools. “From what I observed from Savannah, activists in Atlanta peacefully protested this morning on the critical issue of preserving public education for every family in our state,” she said.This would be a noteworthy endorsement of thuggery by an establishment candidate if anyone was paying attention. It's unclear if anyone's dared ask Abrams if she has any connection to the protesters.
“The mantra of ‘trust black women’ is an historic endorsement of the value of bringing marginalized voices to the forefront, not a rebuke to my opponent’s race.”
I suspect a lot of the political hatred for white women on the left is rationalized resentment of white women by black women, going unchallenged. Whatever the case right now white women are sinking conceptually in the Democratic hierarchy. As "white" becomes increasingly negative, that sort of half-share of it they were allowed as allies gets heavier; and while having a vagina is still applied like a premium the same way as for ethnicity, black women deploying the double-premium of sex-race cancel them out, ethnic men cancel them out, and the remaining white men against whom it is a trump card are only going to grow scarcer.
White Democratic women are left only with the whiteness they've worked so hard to stigmatize.
Hillary Clinton and now Elizabeth Warren have abandoned young white women in their embrace of identity politics. Within the Democratic Party the betrayal of younger whites by aging boomers plays out just as it does in society and politics as a whole. White women are being cut out of the deal in the Democratic Party--is this what your feminist grandmother signed on for?--as part of white people being cut out of the deal in America--is this really what your liberal grandparents signed on for?
Black Stacey's core advocacy is "voter suppression"--but of course, when you consider the video above. That she's the establishment candidate, on a mission to turn Georgia blue, means the Democratic Party effectively shut down one of their own candidates. Nowadays it's hard to see the outrage for all the outrage.
Her battle with Evans is a skirmish in the broader conflict within the party between altruistic economic progressives who wish to remain on speaking terms with working class whites, and those who see one party rule in identity politics.
The elite has always quietly disdained the working class, now they openly disdain whites (even those thus afflicted); true progressive policies are still anathema to corporate America; thus we arrive at our weird new world marrying the corporate world with radical identity politics in the Democratic Party.
Here Black Stacey and Chris Hayes gloat over Hillary Clinton's upcoming blowout of Donald Trump in the 2016 election and the progress of white demographic displacement (and the importance of white women to come out to vote):
White Stacey presents an alternative to the all-identity-politics-all-the-time model which lost Hillary Clinton the presidency but to which the Democrats remain committed. She'll try to coax across white working class voters with Clintonian (Bill not Hill) rhetoric and maybe even policy.
It's hard not to assume at this point the Democrats don't want to win with whites now, when they still only need wait to safely ignore them and enjoy one party rule. If someone wins by wooing whites now someone else will try it; before you know it, the practice is a legitimate alternative.
But Democrats don't want to stretch to accommodate working class whites when they can just wait them out or, better still, hasten them--and their needs--out. Besides, accommodation of working class whites complicates the demonization of whites--which is non-negotiable (and is directed against working class whites, really, a source of embarrassment if nothing else). There isn't room for both schemes. That's why Stacey Evans and her audience were denied their civil rights; she's messing up the program.
Netroots, began in 2006, was always destined to lose its "grassroots" legitimacy and be co-opted by the Democratic Party. Now the Democratic Party is being co-opted by Black Inc, which holds a majority voting share.
It was at Netroots in 2015 that black protesters shut down Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley when he flubbed the shibboleth "black lives matter." Bernie Sanders refused to be bowed completely and managed to get off his prepared speech.
DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas himself explained why that Aggression Would Not Stand (Bernie's, of course) and in the process gave his own game away a bit:
Sanders supporters and #BLM protesters waged battle on Twitter for days. It was an unfortunate turn of events, one that exposed a racial rift between Sanders’s highly educated, white and mostly male supporters, and the younger, more diverse crowd fueling the fight against police brutality in communities of color.
Progressive activists have engaged on issues of unequal justice, police militarization and violence against people of color with an intensity I’ve never previously witnessed.
At Daily Kos, coverage of those issues is nearly guaranteed to receive viral hits and has driven the site’s record growth.
Nothing else comes close to capturing community interest, not even Donald Trump, even though our audience is predominantly white. Sanders was utterly unprepared to discuss the topic that animates today’s progressive activism. [boldface added]Moulitsas is probably being indiscreet here in admitting he's determining newsworthiness and a movement's integrity entirely on its ability to generate business through hits. But it's notable who's hitting and demanding that coverage: white progressives.
We see the Left already hopelessly tied in knots by 2015: Moulitsas' "predominately white" readership was scandalized that Bernie Sanders' campaign was predominately white.
That those "Bernie Bros" were volunteering their time out of altruism, working against their self interest for an agenda that devalues them, in contrast to women turning out for Hillary and blacks turning out in racial solidarity, wasn't enough to break the spell (and less so now), so it can't be said, but from the progressive point of view blacks and women aren't pulling their weight.
The contrast of selflessness to selfishness is striking; no one sees it. Not even the Right. We're so conditioned such thoughts cannot form in the mind.
How far down the rabbit hole is Netroots? Does it matter? Netroots is about to become as relevant as The Roots.
Whatever the case, Bernie Sanders got the message after standing up for himself at that 2015 conference. When what looked like a pair of mediocre community college students bore down on him at a podium in Seattle he knew what to do: nothing. Standing bowed with hands clasped in front of him he looked like a penitent.
Black people have been the soul of the Left for a long time. From Bryan Burrough's account of sixties terrorism, Days of Rage:
An even more prevalent myth, however, is that the radical violence that commenced in 1970 was a protest against hte Vietnam War. In fact, while members of this new underground were vehemently antiwar, the war itself was seldom their primary focus. "We related to the war in a purely opportunistic way," recalls Howard Machtinger, one of the Weather Underground's early leaders. "We were happy to draw new members who were antiwar. But this was never about the war."
What the underground was truly about--what it was always about--was the plight of black Americans. Every single underground group of the 1970s, with the notable exception of the Puerto Rican FALN, was concerned first and foremost with the struggle o f blacks against police brutality, racism, and government repression. While late in the decade several groups expanded their worldview to protest events in South Africa and Central America, he black cause remained the core motivation of almost every significant radical who engaged in violent activities during the 1970s. "Helping out the blacks, fighting alongside them, that was the whole kit and caboodle," says Machtinger. "That was what we were all about."
"Race comes first, always first," says Elizabeth Fink, a radical attorney in Brooklyn who represented scores of underground figures. "Everything started with the Black Panthers.The whole thrill of being with them. When you heard Huey Newton you were blown away. The civil rights movement had turned bad, and these people were ready to fight. And yeah, the war. The country was turning into Nazi Germany, that's how we saw it. Do you have the guts to stand up? The underground did. And oh, the glamour of it. The glamour of dealing with the underground. They were my heroes. Stupid me...we were so, so deluded."
(...)
"I think in our hears what all of us wanted to be," former SDS leader Cathy Wilkerson recalls, "was a Black Panther."
Either the blacks give the Left its romance and energy, its vitality, and deserve the preeminence it has earned them, or blacks have been hustling whites for about a half a century through the Democratic Party.
But seeing how little we have learned in our fascination with blacks, one thing is undeniable: the more things change, the more they stay the same.`
Friday, August 11, 2017
Appropriate that which is Appropriate
It's important to understand we're in the appropriation phase of "civil rights", a period of wealth confiscation and privilege transfer from white to non-white. From culture to commerce new terms and limits are being rationalized as necessary racial justice as professions, cultural domains and even physical spaces are carved out from which whites are to be excluded. The language is all theory and romance (and sinister; at some point black "scholars" started talking about the white "role"in the New America to come) but the result is very much material and economic.
It began in earnest with the Obama Administration, and was well on its way to finalizing a sort of post-white order, with whites serving as a legacy oppressor even as their numbers dwindled. Most importantly it was about the orderly transfer of that wealth and power--it had to go to the right people after all. Needless to say Trump derailed all that, if only for the moment.
This is what all this talk of cultural appropriation and representation is about. It's why Google is convulsing right now under its own attempts to transfer half of its employment opportunity to favored groups. It's everywhere, and a proper economic analysis of its cost, and the costs to come if we continue on this path, would probably make our collective head explode.
The initial fervor that greeted Obama's rise was based for many whites on the notion it would solve America's race problem, reassuring black Americans finally of our sincerity and inspiring them to do better. It's as if the average liberal really understands it isn't white racism holding people back; he just thinks black people don't know it yet. Once they do, things will sort out. Eight years after Obama black people show less signs of catching on. The myth of white racism is more jealously held than ever.
If blacks generally hadn't been paying attention to the culture's positive encouragement Obama certainly had. He took up the archetype he learned on TV and it worked better than any amount of authenticity. A little fake inflection here, a little pretending to like hip hop there. Authenticity is overrated.
The notion that he, in turn, would inspire, finally, black America to pull its weight resembled something like an economic stimulus program, without even the temporary bump. The "Obama Effect" purported to find its positive effects, and quickly fizzled out. Another social justice perpetual motion machine never got going.
Not that blacks weren't inspired by Obama's election. Urban blacks responded right away, discovering and improvising on the flash mob concept. There was a new confidence and energy in black America, but it wasn't expressed by black America becoming more law abiding and successful, whiter; it was expressed--but of course--by more confident blacks being blacker. As usual, blacks had a whole different idea of what things meant than their white "allies".
Their position as a group will not be improved through thrift and industry--even if mere discipline and effort were all it took to equalize us economically and every which way, in so succeeding it would remove the source of black America's unique power and position: their suffering.
But they can't compete with whites at being white and most importantly they don't want to. What they want is to be themselves, to assert themselves, to mold their world--just like anyone else--to make it more amenable and less alien. You can't blame them.
Authenticity--the authenticity Obama lacks, can never attain, is more important than any quality of life metric. To the extent to which the average person feels alienated from his culture--and who doesn't now?--might be directly proportional to the degree to which that culture has been absorbed by other cultures. Consider the degree to which black culture has molded American culture.
Black America's position as a group is improved through political power–they’ve already managed to carve out an out-sized degree of autonomy and influence purely through political action and demagogy. That demagogy--BLM and the rest of what passes for black civil rights--complements perfectly the pre-existing violence and mayhem that produce its martyrs.
The malice behind Obama's toothy grin came out after the Democrats got pummeled hard in Obama's first mid-terms. The fake gloves came off. The Trayvon Martin campaign was whipped up heading into the 2012 elections and produced Black Lives Matter, by 2016, whipped into a frenzy by the presidential campaign, its supporters were assassinating the same police working security at its demonstrations.
At the same time the seemingly petty grievances grew greater in number and fury. In Google trends the term "cultural approproation" went from obscurity to relevance 2012 with Obama's second presidential run, increased up to the administration's second mid-term elections and remains at that plateau now in the time of Trump.
Another conversation we won't have: the failure of the promised Obama Effect and the scandal of the actual Obama Effect. The reality is racial resentment has gotten so much worse over the last eight years it's hard to measure because the terms of debate have had to change that much to keep up with it--resistance not being an option.
The effect of eight years of Obama has been to render the race problem insoluble. On the good side, his policies and rhetoric hastened the rise of the alt right and Trump.
It began in earnest with the Obama Administration, and was well on its way to finalizing a sort of post-white order, with whites serving as a legacy oppressor even as their numbers dwindled. Most importantly it was about the orderly transfer of that wealth and power--it had to go to the right people after all. Needless to say Trump derailed all that, if only for the moment.
This is what all this talk of cultural appropriation and representation is about. It's why Google is convulsing right now under its own attempts to transfer half of its employment opportunity to favored groups. It's everywhere, and a proper economic analysis of its cost, and the costs to come if we continue on this path, would probably make our collective head explode.
The initial fervor that greeted Obama's rise was based for many whites on the notion it would solve America's race problem, reassuring black Americans finally of our sincerity and inspiring them to do better. It's as if the average liberal really understands it isn't white racism holding people back; he just thinks black people don't know it yet. Once they do, things will sort out. Eight years after Obama black people show less signs of catching on. The myth of white racism is more jealously held than ever.
If blacks generally hadn't been paying attention to the culture's positive encouragement Obama certainly had. He took up the archetype he learned on TV and it worked better than any amount of authenticity. A little fake inflection here, a little pretending to like hip hop there. Authenticity is overrated.
The notion that he, in turn, would inspire, finally, black America to pull its weight resembled something like an economic stimulus program, without even the temporary bump. The "Obama Effect" purported to find its positive effects, and quickly fizzled out. Another social justice perpetual motion machine never got going.
Not that blacks weren't inspired by Obama's election. Urban blacks responded right away, discovering and improvising on the flash mob concept. There was a new confidence and energy in black America, but it wasn't expressed by black America becoming more law abiding and successful, whiter; it was expressed--but of course--by more confident blacks being blacker. As usual, blacks had a whole different idea of what things meant than their white "allies".
Their position as a group will not be improved through thrift and industry--even if mere discipline and effort were all it took to equalize us economically and every which way, in so succeeding it would remove the source of black America's unique power and position: their suffering.
But they can't compete with whites at being white and most importantly they don't want to. What they want is to be themselves, to assert themselves, to mold their world--just like anyone else--to make it more amenable and less alien. You can't blame them.
Authenticity--the authenticity Obama lacks, can never attain, is more important than any quality of life metric. To the extent to which the average person feels alienated from his culture--and who doesn't now?--might be directly proportional to the degree to which that culture has been absorbed by other cultures. Consider the degree to which black culture has molded American culture.
Black America's position as a group is improved through political power–they’ve already managed to carve out an out-sized degree of autonomy and influence purely through political action and demagogy. That demagogy--BLM and the rest of what passes for black civil rights--complements perfectly the pre-existing violence and mayhem that produce its martyrs.
The malice behind Obama's toothy grin came out after the Democrats got pummeled hard in Obama's first mid-terms. The fake gloves came off. The Trayvon Martin campaign was whipped up heading into the 2012 elections and produced Black Lives Matter, by 2016, whipped into a frenzy by the presidential campaign, its supporters were assassinating the same police working security at its demonstrations.
At the same time the seemingly petty grievances grew greater in number and fury. In Google trends the term "cultural approproation" went from obscurity to relevance 2012 with Obama's second presidential run, increased up to the administration's second mid-term elections and remains at that plateau now in the time of Trump.
Even the kitsch element in black politics, always profound, got cornier--Ta Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me came out it 2015.
Another conversation we won't have: the failure of the promised Obama Effect and the scandal of the actual Obama Effect. The reality is racial resentment has gotten so much worse over the last eight years it's hard to measure because the terms of debate have had to change that much to keep up with it--resistance not being an option.
The effect of eight years of Obama has been to render the race problem insoluble. On the good side, his policies and rhetoric hastened the rise of the alt right and Trump.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Hijab Hullabaloo
Steve Sailer has been speculating Shepard Fairey's current obsession with the hijab is something of a sexual fetish, and Fairey's choice of a beautiful woman in ruby red lipstick that might get her arrested in one of the more moderate Muslim countries certainly suggests it is, at least, for him and other young straight male social justice warriors:
But I think it emerges from a Platonic fixation on the hijab going back a few years now. As a practical matter, the hijab makes "Muslim" an immediately discernible identity for inclusion in the ubiquitous Bennetton-style imagery of the Diversity movement. Otherwise you've got an uncertain Mediterranean type who could be a mere Italian, yielding next to nothing in Diversity Pokemon points.
But I think it emerges from a Platonic fixation on the hijab going back a few years now. As a practical matter, the hijab makes "Muslim" an immediately discernible identity for inclusion in the ubiquitous Bennetton-style imagery of the Diversity movement. Otherwise you've got an uncertain Mediterranean type who could be a mere Italian, yielding next to nothing in Diversity Pokemon points.
To find an image immediately discernible as Muslim it becomes slim pickings once you've abandoned the hijab; you're left with such as the unattractive, literally and figuratively, Angry Muslim Beard Man
whose inclusion destroys the purpose of presenting a positive, non-threatening image entirely; he's been memed so much by shitposters I couldn't even find the iconic original image of him I had in mind, without text. Fortunately the real-life Angry Muslim Beard Man has gotten around quite a bit himself--so much so I think I've seen a conspiracy theory out there purporting to out him as a Mossad agent provocateur; he's everywhere on the Internet. As for Mild Hijab Woman, she's so in demand Google images auto-completes at h.
Taken as a whole Hijab Woman is more mild-mannered in appearance than she is attractive--though she is more attractive than the real-life hijab women you see on the street, many of whom make you wonder if the full face veil option of the Burka is not solely about protecting the modesty of women but also the eyes of men
I suspect the hijab is popular precisely because it projects a comforting modesty. Hijab Woman provides a welcome, if unrecognized, mild corrective to the broader social justice movement, with its endless surfeit of gyrating gays, obese co-eds, angry androgynes in tattoos, gages, piercings and awkward, tasteless apparel.
There's probably an unease for the socially aware person whose commitment isn't derived from his own psychological issues--yes, I do believe they exist--regarding the affected decadence and endlessly varied bad taste that is increasingly dominant in the movement. Hijab Woman cleanses the palate in between doses of the tart, the bitter, the sickly-sweet.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
The Curious Case of Bradley's Button
Yesterday Steve Sailer noted today how Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning's gender dysphoria, having gone from footnote to forefront during his incarceration along with the rise of the trans rights movement, is now seen by fashionable convention as a legitimate sympathy factor favoring President Obama's commutation of his sentence, as evidenced by the New York Times:
It's a cliche that politics are mostly, if not entirely, about social identity, as individuals vote in line with their perceived in-group values and needs. Needless to say, in the US social identity in politics and beyond has so long been pathologized for whites and encouraged, even romanticized, in minorities until it has become unchallenged convention that majority interests are inherently suspect and white interests nonexistent or evil. An astounding notion. It's hard to say how much of this is cynical manipulation and how much is the obliviousness of the elites' true-believing middle management corps.
In a nation with a dominant ethnic majority social identity politics arrange along class lines. In ours for a long time now they've arranged themselves around ethnic (now sexual and sexual preference) identity. Obama promised his election would transcend this. There was a curious, very un-progressive appeal to order inherent in it; even, that progressive bugaboo nostalgia played a part (reeling from something like a national identity crisis after President Bush squandered so much national prestige in his ill-fated Iraq invasion, we were encouraged to revisit what has become, however stupidly, our imagined greatest achievement--black civil rights.) We would be one, finally by squaring the circle of racism.
Over his time in office we've come not only to see the impossibility of this, but the fact the elite wants nothing to do with it. Division is the point--diversity after all means division. It was social identity for me but not for thee, white people. This is what half the country rejected with Trump's election.
With the reaction to Trump's success--itself a reaction to this long process--this shaming dynamic of de-legitimizing white majority interests and valorizing minority interests reached its nadir, and, after a half century of unopposed triumph, it failed grandly in last year's presidential election. Maybe the de-legitimization of white interests represents less a transformation of politics than the death thereof, part and parcel of the surrender, led by Buckleyite conservatism in America, to the globalist order that is at the moment reeling from the one-two punch of Trump and Brexit. The interests of white Americans and Europeans were the very problem, it is now openly declared (though it's important to note this would have been considered insane at the beginning of this progress of slow-walking us to our demise), as witnessed by American slavery and the Holocaust. Now it isn't just populism that is the enemy, but the population--to be corrected by the demographic diversification of that population into competing ethnic groups under an imperial multi-pole represented by Washington DC, New York and Brussels.
It's part, maybe the essential part, of that death of meaningful democratic politics in the West. As Kevin Grace said, "politics, as conventionally understood, died in that bunker in Berlin when Hitler put a bullet in his brain."
But politics go on, divorced from policy and meaning (for it remains to be seen if the Trump phenomenon, as much as anything else an insurgency against this order, will pan out). And that means politics as advertising. Advertising itself is advanced political method. And advertising is less about social identity--that gauche recognition of practical reality and real interests--than it is about aspirational social identity. Buy this product and display your status, or front a higher status, or even ascend thereby to a higher status (for perception is all--politics has taken this quite to heart). Status of course includes moral status--show your social "awareness" by buying "green" or "non-conflict" diamonds (wealth and virtue combine in the ultimate display).
A short conversation with the average anti-Trump civilian will quickly illustrate for you how much politics have become, for the fashionably conventional, aspirational social identity striving.
But with the transformation of Bradly Manning, hero or traitor, to Chelsea Manning, unassailable virtue-victim, represents a new aspect of social identity in politics. Now we are expected to identify and apply a premium or penalty depending on the social identity of the subject class or individual. The classes warranting a political, cultural and--apparently now with official recognition of Manning's identity--can only be expected to grow (and compete with each other), while the classes for which a penalty is applied will remain static (and shrinking along with demographic and cultural change): white, male, straight. This does not end well--unless we end it now in defiance, somehow.
It's a cliche that politics are mostly, if not entirely, about social identity, as individuals vote in line with their perceived in-group values and needs. Needless to say, in the US social identity in politics and beyond has so long been pathologized for whites and encouraged, even romanticized, in minorities until it has become unchallenged convention that majority interests are inherently suspect and white interests nonexistent or evil. An astounding notion. It's hard to say how much of this is cynical manipulation and how much is the obliviousness of the elites' true-believing middle management corps.
In a nation with a dominant ethnic majority social identity politics arrange along class lines. In ours for a long time now they've arranged themselves around ethnic (now sexual and sexual preference) identity. Obama promised his election would transcend this. There was a curious, very un-progressive appeal to order inherent in it; even, that progressive bugaboo nostalgia played a part (reeling from something like a national identity crisis after President Bush squandered so much national prestige in his ill-fated Iraq invasion, we were encouraged to revisit what has become, however stupidly, our imagined greatest achievement--black civil rights.) We would be one, finally by squaring the circle of racism.
Over his time in office we've come not only to see the impossibility of this, but the fact the elite wants nothing to do with it. Division is the point--diversity after all means division. It was social identity for me but not for thee, white people. This is what half the country rejected with Trump's election.
With the reaction to Trump's success--itself a reaction to this long process--this shaming dynamic of de-legitimizing white majority interests and valorizing minority interests reached its nadir, and, after a half century of unopposed triumph, it failed grandly in last year's presidential election. Maybe the de-legitimization of white interests represents less a transformation of politics than the death thereof, part and parcel of the surrender, led by Buckleyite conservatism in America, to the globalist order that is at the moment reeling from the one-two punch of Trump and Brexit. The interests of white Americans and Europeans were the very problem, it is now openly declared (though it's important to note this would have been considered insane at the beginning of this progress of slow-walking us to our demise), as witnessed by American slavery and the Holocaust. Now it isn't just populism that is the enemy, but the population--to be corrected by the demographic diversification of that population into competing ethnic groups under an imperial multi-pole represented by Washington DC, New York and Brussels.
It's part, maybe the essential part, of that death of meaningful democratic politics in the West. As Kevin Grace said, "politics, as conventionally understood, died in that bunker in Berlin when Hitler put a bullet in his brain."
But politics go on, divorced from policy and meaning (for it remains to be seen if the Trump phenomenon, as much as anything else an insurgency against this order, will pan out). And that means politics as advertising. Advertising itself is advanced political method. And advertising is less about social identity--that gauche recognition of practical reality and real interests--than it is about aspirational social identity. Buy this product and display your status, or front a higher status, or even ascend thereby to a higher status (for perception is all--politics has taken this quite to heart). Status of course includes moral status--show your social "awareness" by buying "green" or "non-conflict" diamonds (wealth and virtue combine in the ultimate display).
A short conversation with the average anti-Trump civilian will quickly illustrate for you how much politics have become, for the fashionably conventional, aspirational social identity striving.
But with the transformation of Bradly Manning, hero or traitor, to Chelsea Manning, unassailable virtue-victim, represents a new aspect of social identity in politics. Now we are expected to identify and apply a premium or penalty depending on the social identity of the subject class or individual. The classes warranting a political, cultural and--apparently now with official recognition of Manning's identity--can only be expected to grow (and compete with each other), while the classes for which a penalty is applied will remain static (and shrinking along with demographic and cultural change): white, male, straight. This does not end well--unless we end it now in defiance, somehow.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Thanks for Everything, F--- You
The Nazis and the old Soviet Union assigned political officers to military units to enforce ideological conformity. The Stasi was legendary for getting civilians to inform on each other for the slightest breaches of ideology--what we would call political correctness.
Needless to say, we would never do any such thing. We don't need commissars to keep us in line. The elite polices itself and us, without prompting, and their purview, as they would have it, extends to everything. There's a whole genre now in journalism dedicated to denouncing any found "lack of diversity"; not just in a given field or organization, but in our hobbies and associations (even bird-watching is under watch).
Of course it isn't homogeneity but whiteness that bothers them. Spike Lee once said America is so racist we think three black guys standing on a corner constitutes a riot. That was a long time ago. Now we're so anti-racist we think three white guys working in the same room constitutes a hate crime in progress (but not everything is changed: the brothers are still on the corner and white guys still do the bulk of the work).
A related sub-genre was created by an enterprising writer in analyzing the effectiveness and aesthetics of that now familiar entertainment, the public apology. He should have quite a career ahead of him.
So it's unsurprising that an Intercept scribe interrupted his anecdote about how the late Washington Post editor Bill Bradlee gave him a break when he was a young ambitious reporter to question the man's integrity in doing it and genuflect to diversity from graveside:
I am sure my cause was helped by the fact that I was young and white and male, the kind of object that older editors who are white and male tend to have a biased soft spot for. This is why it’s good we don’t have as many Ben Bradlees these days; the mirroring and replication of a dominant culture is weaker now. Which doesn’t mean we’re in a universally better place; we have a lot of editors who are more cautious than they should be (patriarchy replaced by management culture), and a large number of top slots are still filled with guys (yes, including at The Intercept). It’s hard to believe that gender played no role in the firing of Jill Abramson at The New York Times.
Needless to say, we would never do any such thing. We don't need commissars to keep us in line. The elite polices itself and us, without prompting, and their purview, as they would have it, extends to everything. There's a whole genre now in journalism dedicated to denouncing any found "lack of diversity"; not just in a given field or organization, but in our hobbies and associations (even bird-watching is under watch).
Of course it isn't homogeneity but whiteness that bothers them. Spike Lee once said America is so racist we think three black guys standing on a corner constitutes a riot. That was a long time ago. Now we're so anti-racist we think three white guys working in the same room constitutes a hate crime in progress (but not everything is changed: the brothers are still on the corner and white guys still do the bulk of the work).
A related sub-genre was created by an enterprising writer in analyzing the effectiveness and aesthetics of that now familiar entertainment, the public apology. He should have quite a career ahead of him.
So it's unsurprising that an Intercept scribe interrupted his anecdote about how the late Washington Post editor Bill Bradlee gave him a break when he was a young ambitious reporter to question the man's integrity in doing it and genuflect to diversity from graveside:
I am sure my cause was helped by the fact that I was young and white and male, the kind of object that older editors who are white and male tend to have a biased soft spot for. This is why it’s good we don’t have as many Ben Bradlees these days; the mirroring and replication of a dominant culture is weaker now. Which doesn’t mean we’re in a universally better place; we have a lot of editors who are more cautious than they should be (patriarchy replaced by management culture), and a large number of top slots are still filled with guys (yes, including at The Intercept). It’s hard to believe that gender played no role in the firing of Jill Abramson at The New York Times.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Sorrows of Diversity
Plentiful as cheap organisms
Undeveloped in the bosom of a nation...
...you're one of us
--My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, On This Rack
According to police a heartwarmingly diverse duo in Seattle aspired to be a duskier, dumber Leopold and Loeb:
Their "likes" call to my mind the controversial Bret Easton Ellis novel American Psycho, about a yuppie serial killer with a pedestrian tastes in pop music (in the film version he gives an unwitting victim an impromptu, glowing review of Huey Lewis and the News' Sports just before splitting his head with an axe, while Hip to be Square blares insipidly over his top-of-the-line sound system): young Vinsint was a fan of That Seventies Show, American Dad, Two and a Half Men and Family Guy. And of course he and his alleged accomplice--whose parent(s) gave the name "Blessing" (when masked for crime he's a Blessing in disguise)--love their video games.
I've always found it curious and creepy to consider the wandering psychopaths among us laughing at the same television shows, rooting for the same sports teams, listening to the same music--bathing in the same glow coming off the screens in your home. Just like the disgruntled diversity hire Chris Dorner lamenting his suicidal killing spree meant he'd miss The Hangover III and giving shout-outs to his favorite celebs--yo, Anderson Cooper, my man!
The revulsion of finding behind a stupefying act of evil the trite, the familiar, the frivolous, the just plain stupid may explain a familiar screen cliché (coming from that same dull circle of our cultural hell where our Vinsints and Blessings spend so much time): the brilliant serial killer with expansive knowledge and exquisite tastes. You know the scene: here he is plotting his next crime while listening to a delicate aria. There he is now taunting his interrogators with impeccable English. We need to believe in the uniqueness of personified evil. In the difficulty of it. We want it to be an achievement, and not an easy one.
Alas. All hell requires is mediocrity and terror. I imagine the further you delve into the mind of one of these breathing horrors the more you'll find--perhaps most terrifyingly of all--nothing. Nothing but dull, base sensations and wants, led by stupidity and greed. Distressingly common and only held in check by the coercion of law and convention.
Undeveloped in the bosom of a nation...
...you're one of us
--My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, On This Rack
According to police a heartwarmingly diverse duo in Seattle aspired to be a duskier, dumber Leopold and Loeb:
Sometime before 6 a.m. on Oct. 12, two men forced their way into a house in the 13700 block of Northeast 133rd Street and confronted the 18-year-old as he slept in a third-floor bedroom of his parents’ home, charging documents say. The two men restrained the teen in bed and held a knife to his throat, the papers say.In the comments section (that's me there as eladsinned) to the Seattle Times' report someone posted links to the alleged Facebook pages of the accused and another friend of theirs, making for a diversity trifecta: one third Asian, one third Black, one third Hispanic, one hundred percent psychopathic. Some social media points are like little peepholes into hell.
The two forced the young man downstairs, threatening to harm others in the house if he resisted or made any sound, according to the papers. Once in the basement, the 18-year-old was wrestled to the floor; one of his attackers restrained his arms and instructed his accomplice to cut the man’s leg off, the papers say.
That attacker — allegedly Gainey — began hacking at the man’s left ankle and leg, “causing large deep cuts down to the bone,” the papers say.
Their "likes" call to my mind the controversial Bret Easton Ellis novel American Psycho, about a yuppie serial killer with a pedestrian tastes in pop music (in the film version he gives an unwitting victim an impromptu, glowing review of Huey Lewis and the News' Sports just before splitting his head with an axe, while Hip to be Square blares insipidly over his top-of-the-line sound system): young Vinsint was a fan of That Seventies Show, American Dad, Two and a Half Men and Family Guy. And of course he and his alleged accomplice--whose parent(s) gave the name "Blessing" (when masked for crime he's a Blessing in disguise)--love their video games.
I've always found it curious and creepy to consider the wandering psychopaths among us laughing at the same television shows, rooting for the same sports teams, listening to the same music--bathing in the same glow coming off the screens in your home. Just like the disgruntled diversity hire Chris Dorner lamenting his suicidal killing spree meant he'd miss The Hangover III and giving shout-outs to his favorite celebs--yo, Anderson Cooper, my man!
The revulsion of finding behind a stupefying act of evil the trite, the familiar, the frivolous, the just plain stupid may explain a familiar screen cliché (coming from that same dull circle of our cultural hell where our Vinsints and Blessings spend so much time): the brilliant serial killer with expansive knowledge and exquisite tastes. You know the scene: here he is plotting his next crime while listening to a delicate aria. There he is now taunting his interrogators with impeccable English. We need to believe in the uniqueness of personified evil. In the difficulty of it. We want it to be an achievement, and not an easy one.
Alas. All hell requires is mediocrity and terror. I imagine the further you delve into the mind of one of these breathing horrors the more you'll find--perhaps most terrifyingly of all--nothing. Nothing but dull, base sensations and wants, led by stupidity and greed. Distressingly common and only held in check by the coercion of law and convention.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Operation Embrace in Effect, Operation Dry Hump Standing By
According to USA Today, the mosque attended by the terrorist Tsarnaev brothers
is a tad less liberal than its Boston surroundings:
Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque's first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.
Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques. The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.
"We don't know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there," said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.Recall Fareed Zakaria's advice that we "embrace" our Muslim communities like the Europeans do, establishing contacts so respectable Muslims will inform on their radical cousins. The feds are way ahead of you, Zak:
Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.
"If there were really any worry about us being extreme," Vali said, U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not partner with the Muslim American Society and the Boston mosque in conducting monthly meetings that have been ongoing for four years, he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. government outreach programs in the Muslim community.
The Cambridge and Boston mosques, separated by the Charles River, are owned by the same entity but managed individually. The imam of the Cambridge mosque, Sheik Basyouny Nehela, is on the board of directors of the Boston mosque.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Cambridge mosque for services and are accused of setting two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 264 others at the April 15 Boston Marathon. The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activityNote the same organization, the Islamic Society of Boston, runs the Islamic Society of Boston Mosque in Cambridge and the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Boston proper. This may mean nothing, but it could be they have an official mosque for inoffensive services and more radical preaching in another to avoid alarming their more respectable congregants.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Diversity is...
...military failure:
The Taliban's ability to infiltrate throughout the Afghan National Police (ANP) and Army (ANA) may have been facilitated by efforts to "homogenize" those forces in 2007 and 2008. Initially, many units in both forces were organized along regional or ethnic lines. Existing regional and ethnic divides were thus institutionalized - hardly a way to create national unity and lessen tensions among groups that have been at war for three decades .
The new plan was to create units that were roughly proportional to the ethnic makeup of the country: Pashtun at 42 percent, Tajik at 27 percent, Hazara and Uzbek at 9 percent each, Turkmen at 3 percent, and several smaller groups, including nomads, making up the remaining 10 percent.Sounds like the Pentagon replaced the traditional accommodation of diversity, divvying up institutions by ethnicity, which no doubt hinders the creation or fiction of a national identity, with our own naively radical notions of proportional representation and desegregation.
It is believed that it was at this time that the Taliban were able to insert sleeper agents into every major ANA and ANP unit throughout the country. These agents are now being awakened and given missions designed to demoralize ISAF forces and drive a wedge of mistrust between trainer and trainee.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Criminalizing Context Recognition
It had to end here. The Trayvonicus lynch-meme sputters on, but is starting to look like a particularly depressing Al Sharpton hoax as we learn George Zimmerman's injuries were documented and consistent with a beating. Eyewitnesses testified to them from the start of course, but most Americans have only the legal discovery process to thank for the belated information. The networks were too busy with the sort of yellow journalism that had Marcia Clark declaring George Zimmerman sustained no injuries because, as the security camera video clearly shows, he retains powers of locomotion and isn't cradling his gutted entrails like a football just hours later (not since Bill Frist video-diagnosed Terri Schiavo...). Of course this evidence was available to the special prosecutor brought in to bring Zimmerman up on charges. Didn't make it into the affidavit.
Hey, I think I found that crime you been looking for!
But Zimmerman's real misfortune is to not have been born George Ramos. That's what so aroused the elite media, at first expecting nothing more than another ritual sacrifice to the national god of black resentment. Now they have this potential national race riot on their hands. So no matter if Zimmerman looks increasingly innocent; the thing must be seen to its (responsible elites hope) riot-defusing conclusion. As if by evil design then it will run alongside the president's election campaign of race-baiting demagogy--five more months, including summer, pumping the bellows of resentment (November or Bust!)--on one hand and the traditional summer season of black on white violence on the other. The diversity demagogues are fighting this one like there's no tomorrow. Maybe they're right.
But they have a fallback position. At first they told us, and some (blessed naifs) believed George Zimmerman stalked and murdered a black boy. That position is no longer tenable. But there's no walking this one back down. So out comes the lamest of the stable of American white racism tropes: racial profiling. No matter what transpired, it all came as a result of Zimmerman's racist stereotyping. Cognition aforehand! Note that whether Zimmerman was right or not about Trayvon Martin isn't allowed in polite discussion; Martin's good nature is presumed. But a prosecution based on racial profiling would have to contend with this question, and the reality of statistical probabilities and black menace, in a high profile criminal trial. Does the left really want that?
It will get interesting, watching them argue this with a straight face against the backdrop of the traditional summer season of black on white violence. But of course they will. To maintain critical race theory's dominance over convention requires ever-greater powers of media denial, and the powers so far on display have been awe-inspiring. Ignoring violence such as last summer's flash-mobs in the age of Drudge and American Renaissance would seem impossible, but the respectable media did such a good job of it many of them truly don't even know it happened ("news to me" was one reporter's response, given as he defended censoring race out of a reported attack; and I'm willing to bet he still hasn't made the connection between his dereliction and his ignorance!).
And if they don't get to notice they'll be damned if we do either. So now George Zimmerman is a potential test-case for criminilazing "racial profiling", not by law enforcement (whatever validity that may have), but by a common citizen. The ABC News article linked ABC News article linked to above, revealing the extent of Zimmerman's injuries as well as Trayvon's (one set of bruised knuckles; one gunshot wound) gets around to it in the last paragraph:
But Zimmerman's real misfortune is to not have been born George Ramos. That's what so aroused the elite media, at first expecting nothing more than another ritual sacrifice to the national god of black resentment. Now they have this potential national race riot on their hands. So no matter if Zimmerman looks increasingly innocent; the thing must be seen to its (responsible elites hope) riot-defusing conclusion. As if by evil design then it will run alongside the president's election campaign of race-baiting demagogy--five more months, including summer, pumping the bellows of resentment (November or Bust!)--on one hand and the traditional summer season of black on white violence on the other. The diversity demagogues are fighting this one like there's no tomorrow. Maybe they're right.
But they have a fallback position. At first they told us, and some (blessed naifs) believed George Zimmerman stalked and murdered a black boy. That position is no longer tenable. But there's no walking this one back down. So out comes the lamest of the stable of American white racism tropes: racial profiling. No matter what transpired, it all came as a result of Zimmerman's racist stereotyping. Cognition aforehand! Note that whether Zimmerman was right or not about Trayvon Martin isn't allowed in polite discussion; Martin's good nature is presumed. But a prosecution based on racial profiling would have to contend with this question, and the reality of statistical probabilities and black menace, in a high profile criminal trial. Does the left really want that?
It will get interesting, watching them argue this with a straight face against the backdrop of the traditional summer season of black on white violence. But of course they will. To maintain critical race theory's dominance over convention requires ever-greater powers of media denial, and the powers so far on display have been awe-inspiring. Ignoring violence such as last summer's flash-mobs in the age of Drudge and American Renaissance would seem impossible, but the respectable media did such a good job of it many of them truly don't even know it happened ("news to me" was one reporter's response, given as he defended censoring race out of a reported attack; and I'm willing to bet he still hasn't made the connection between his dereliction and his ignorance!).
And if they don't get to notice they'll be damned if we do either. So now George Zimmerman is a potential test-case for criminilazing "racial profiling", not by law enforcement (whatever validity that may have), but by a common citizen. The ABC News article linked ABC News article linked to above, revealing the extent of Zimmerman's injuries as well as Trayvon's (one set of bruised knuckles; one gunshot wound) gets around to it in the last paragraph:
However, the prosecution contends that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation after profiling the teen, who was walking home after buying skittles and ice tea. They prosecution says Martin was breaking no laws and was not disturbing anyone as he walked back to his father's girlfriend's home.With the FBI now threatening hate crime charges, George Zimmerman may become the first American citizen convicted of racial stereotyping.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Ask not for whom the strife bodes...
The New York Times knows multiculturalism when it sees it (abroad):
Sectarian Strife in Diverse City Bodes Ill for All of Syria
With all these models of truly multicultural (as opposed to whatever is meant by the phrase here in the States) societies around us, you'd think our elite might question its policy of planned ethnic diversification. Because while ethnic cleansing has a long, bloody history, ethnic diversification has none at all. That is other than history's many examples of imperial powers importing one population to displace another--we are the first to inflict this upon ourselves--which has always been just a means of ethnic cleansing. What part greed and what part stupidity propel our elite's actions remains a mystery to me.
Sectarian Strife in Diverse City Bodes Ill for All of Syria
With all these models of truly multicultural (as opposed to whatever is meant by the phrase here in the States) societies around us, you'd think our elite might question its policy of planned ethnic diversification. Because while ethnic cleansing has a long, bloody history, ethnic diversification has none at all. That is other than history's many examples of imperial powers importing one population to displace another--we are the first to inflict this upon ourselves--which has always been just a means of ethnic cleansing. What part greed and what part stupidity propel our elite's actions remains a mystery to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sanity Fair
"Antifascist" demonstration Portland, Oregon. August 17, 2019. The two sides squared off across a field, defined by police cord...
