The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Future of Politically Correct Struggle Sessions
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Spandrell reviews the mechanics of how Mao’s Cult of Personality emerged twice, once in later 1950s China, which led to the Great Leap Forward, backyard steel furnaces, the collectivization of agriculture, and 30 million starving to death. Then, after the Communist Party leadership sent Mao off to think about culture rather than economics, he returned in 1965 with the Cultural Revolution.

A key to the Cult of Personality was the high-pressure “struggle session” in which true believers browbeat doubters and whip the uncommitted up into a frenzy.

Spandrell reflects:

And this is the story of the great Chinese Leftist Singularity. Now that we have a detailed account of how it started, how it accelerated and how it exploded into complete madness; let us go back to the present, and take a good look.

Progressivism has been accelerating of late, all with global warming melting the poles every day now, women being able to accuse ex-boyfriends of rape months after the fact and without evidence, and the right of 60 year old ex-athletes to use the women’s bathroom being state policy. Failure to signal your approval for any of these developments will get you fired. And the higher the pressure of people to approve of present progressive tenets, the faster that newer, more radical tenets appear, and the more this happens the more demand it creates of rituals to convince people of the holiness of progressive ideals.

The threat of losing one’s job is more than enough to get people motivated to toe the progressive line. You can create a very high-pressure environment, and thus a faster moving leftist singularity without having to kill anyone. Which is an improvement, I guess. It does seem that the demand for effective progressive rituals isn’t being properly addressed, though. Liberals understand the demand, and have come up with mandatory Sensitivity Training in all government agencies and private companies; but they aren’t intense enough yet, and they patently haven’t succeeded in creating sufficient amounts of sincere belief; which drives liberals to denounce all the lukewarm Maoists who still don’t love blacks and trannies from the bottom of their heart.

Perhaps it can’t be done. Cults of personality are, if crazy, still quite natural given man’s religious nature. Worshipping a powerful man as a god has been quite common through history, and eventually morphing the old man’s image into a lucky charm to be put as paperwall to repel bad spirits is fairly standard in a cognitive sense. But getting people to love black people, who they actively avoid in their daily lives, to hate their own ethnic group, to hate straight men, to love fags, trannies, sluts and fatties; well that’s too much shit to take even for homo hypocritus. You can get some people, mostly natural status-whores into the plan, and you can get most people to say they love progressivism, and to not actively oppose it.

But getting people to pumped up in a high-pressure ritual to actually develop faith in the program; that can’t be very easy. At least for white men, who are the bad guys in the story. Which might account for the overrepresentation of Asians among SJWs these days; it’s less cognitively taxing for them to develop sincerity.

The sheer implausibility of progressive theology might account for the slow pace of the leftist singularity, compared to the Communist examples. But growing it is; and unless the government doesn’t stop the fear of reprisal; i.e. if people don’t stop getting fired for being insufficiently PC, progressivism will only get worse. Slowly, steadily worse.

Here are a couple of weaknesses in the current system that have retarded its drive toward Maoist-level mania.

First, the lack of a single Cult of Personality figure, a Big Brother, to worship. Modern American progressivism is polytheistic rather than monotheistic, so not even MLK can serve without ever increasing demands to add to the pantheons. Perhaps a leftist Hindu intellectual will someday work out how American Progressivism can achieve the emotional intensity of monotheistic totalitarian cults of personality like Maoism and Stalinism while still being sensitive to diversity.

What they try to do is to not have a single patriarchal Big Brother, just have an Emmanuel Goldstein hate symbol to unify around by hating cisgender straight white gentile males. But of course, humans are more inclined to want to follow a big, healthy, masculine, brave, straight guy like Mao than various representatives of the fringes. So a Mitt Romney-type doesn’t make a good Emmanuel Goldstein for two minutes hates because a Mitt-type would naturally make a better Big Brother.

I’m not sure what the Progressives will do to overcome this, since they can’t actually publicly discuss their problems. But never doubt the power of American entrepreneurialism to eventually come up with solutions to problems customers didn’t even realize they had.

Second, the current round of struggle sessions for political correctness appear to be pretty lame at arousing the masses. I’ve never sat through a Tim Wise lecture or attended Eddie Moore’s White Privilege conference, but they don’t sound all that emotionally galvanizing, except maybe to total dweebs.

I suspect, however, that bigger cult talents will eventually glom onto the Diversity conventional wisdom and turn it into something more barn-burning.

Consider, for example, the guys who for the last 45 years have been running Landmark or est or whatever they choose to call themselves at the moment. These guys are pretty competent at turning a religion of nothing into a moneymaking cult.

What car salesman Werner Erhard did to invent est was to start with Jean-Paul Sartre’s epochal October 1945 lecture “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” in which Sartre offered secular students of Continental Europe an idealistic-sounding alternative to Communism: God doesn’t exist, so you have to choose your own ideals. Then Erhard simplified existentialism into est for American corporate middle managers.

And est is still out there after all these years. For example, Canadian billionaire Chip Wilson, founder of the Lululemon yoga pants empire (who says his competitive advantage is that he’s the only man in women’s design who likes to look at women in really tight pants), paid for all his staffers to go to est-ish seminars.

By this point, everybody knows it’s kind of a cult and a scam, except … on some people these struggle session techniques really work, even when the surface existentialist ideology is that each individual is supposed to come up with his own values to live out. And yet all this apparent individuality seems to work fine at making Chip Wilson a billionaire.

It would take somebody pretty brilliant to adapt est struggle session techniques, which are nominally about individualism, to enforcing political correctness by igniting Maoist passions among Americans.

But I suspect somebody at some point will figure it out.

And then watch out.

 
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A thought I’ve had: maybe that’s the best thing about liberalism. It’s so absurd and so anti-human nature, that as an official ideology it will never be able to compel millions to die for it the way that nationalism did in the two World Wars and religion did centuries ago. Imagine men going off to war to make sure Bill and Steve can get married, or so little girls won’t get to pretend to be princesses. For all the faults of modern elites, they’ve at least kept the world relatively peaceful.

    • Replies: @Horzabky
    Maybe that's why liberals always try to make people fight AGAINST something, rather than FOR something. Making people vote not FOR multiculturalism, but AGAINST white / patriarchal / heterosexual oppression. The people who would have you fired for an un-PC opinion are always the same ones who urge you to vote against mostly imaginary right-wing oppression.

    During WWII, Stalin urged the Soviet citizens to fight against fascism, not for communism. Indeed, the communists rediscovered patriotism during WWII: in the USSR, they called WWII "the Great Patriotic War".
  2. Obama is Mao. Rudy and Scott Walkers mild criticism have ignited a firestorm of hate.

    Obama worship is the key to a Maoist nightmare. Crucially, the current Chinese regime ignores rather than debunks Mao. I have serious doubts that Obama will willinglly leave the White House to live in Bush style obscurity.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    What is he going to do? Abrogate the Constitution? Foment a coup? You must be drinking some of your namesake beverage. There is zero support for Obama staying on even among rabid Leftists. No one has even floated a trial balloon about amending the Constitution or having him run as VP or some other ploy. Anyway, it's Hillary's turn.


    The US has a strong Constitutional system. Occasionally, someone (Roosevelt) will infect the system but even he was not strong enough to kill it and at some point the system's immune response pushed back (rejection of the Court packing scheme, passage of the 22nd Amendment). Obama has also tried some extra-Constitutional ploys (immigration) but they won't last either.
  3. It would take somebody pretty brilliant to adapt est struggle session techniques to enforcing political correctness by igniting Maoist passions among Americans, but I suspect somebody at some point will figure it out.

    Somebody on the other side will figure it out first. Big men thrive on revolution — not the status quo. Mao’s cultural revolution was a political maneuver in which he reignited revolution to put himself back on top after technocrats had politely shoved him aside.

    Our politically correct classes are inherently paranoid about any man who might have populist appeal. They are dyed-in-the-wool anti-populists and effete by nature. They are constitutionally incapable of creating a strongman.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork — not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    • Replies: @wren
    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork — not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    I agree. The PC SJW's have laid most of the groundwork already by elevating increasingly tenuous and contradictory victim groups, making it much easier for someone to step up and say "Enough already!"

    Somewhat like what Spandrell is saying in his piece.

    I'd guess the "groundwork" could also include some "Idiocracy"-type comedy pointing out how idiotic things are becoming. The pushback can already be anticipated, so could be countered in the movie itself.

    Maybe Steve could write the screenplay.

    , @Twinkie

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.
     
    I know this sounds odd, but I fear someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear.

    Enemies I am comfortable with - I know where to aim the rifle. Someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear, on the other hand, is liable to stab me in the back just when I need him the most. So I tend to watch the leaders of my team carefully and, at all times, keep them honest... which is a conservative trait - understanding the fallibility of Man, and guarding against it at all times.

    Besides, I already believe in one Savior; I don't have a room for a second.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Who is we?? I'm not a populist!
  4. Straight white women are the main market for this sort of thing, but it’s pretty hard for straight white women to really go all in for hating straight white men. After all, those are the guys they most want to marry and/or go to bed with.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Notwithstanding the efforts of the YKW lobby and SJW fellow (if that isn't taboo to say) travelers to get white women to hate white men and love everyone else, or at least to debase themselves, their families and their communities.
    , @Jack D
    Someone once said that there will never be an ultimate winner in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. Bitter lesbian types really would like to destroy white men (not only fits their political ideology but cuts the dating competition) but most heterosexual women understand on some level that it is not in their interest.
  5. Back in the 50s and 60s, communism wasn’t a wholly discredited system. Lots of people including non-communists sincerely believed that it could deliver material progress and even surpass capitalism materially.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Not just the '50s and the '60s. When I was at Wharton in the mid '70s, they brought someone from Larry Klein's shop in to guest lecture my Econ class (Klein was the Nobel Prize winning father of econometric forecasting - he had also belonged to the Communist Party in the '40s). This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP. Nothing ideological about this, it was a simple mathematical fact.

    It apparently never occurred to these guys that the Soviets were issuing phony statistics or that their growth could not continue in a linear fashion. But it was in their own professional interest that the US switch to a planned economy. In a free market economy, econometricians are like weather forecasters (and usually not very good ones). In a planned economy, they are like God - they MAKE the weather.

    It's also worth noting that in the '70s, the per capita GNP of North Korea was still higher than South Korea's (even allowing for phoniness in the N. Korean stats). Communism really was capable of producing industrial goods, up to a certain point. Yes, they used unethical means such as forced labor and theft of Western intellectual property and physical assets, but there was a time when they were actually able to make stuff (a lot of it military goods, but never mind). But at some point the "contradictions" caught up with them and it all fell apart.
  6. Absurd things that almost happened: Montana’s yoga pants ban
    “No one is safe from this menace. They are in the streets. They are coming for you. Making you … think things. Making you feel feelings. They are slipping into your dreams and filling them with Lewd Images, beyond all your power to control. They must be stopped — by law, if necessary.” WaPo
    I’d say idiot and Congress…I’d be repeating myself though.

    • Replies: @josh
    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.
  7. Margaret Thatcher worked much better than Ronald Reagan or Jacques Chirac or whoever as a right wing devil figure. I suspect this is because, if you didn’t like her politics, she came off as a scolding mom. We like women to be soft and nurturing, so if you’re not, you’re in danger of getting cast as the witch.

  8. Which might account for the overrepresentation of Asians among SJWs these days; it’s less cognitively taxing for them to develop sincerity.

    Well, sure. Liberalism (at least the more earnest kind of liberalism, anyway) is pathological whiteness. Thus while white leftists tend to be liberal, non-white leftists tend to be illiberal. The white leftist says, “We whites are sinners. Let us repent.” The non-white leftist says, “You whites are losers. Hand over the money and power already.”

    As Steve put it a while back, most people outside the Western world are naturally conservative (i.e., ethnocentric and nationalistic, with concentric circles of loyalty).

    Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, “Look at all the followers we’ve attracted!”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ethnocentrism and nationalism aren't examples of concentric circles of loyalty. Being ethnocentric or nationalistic involves leap-frogging sub-ethnic or sub-national loyalties and withholding supra-ethnic or supra-national loyalties.

    I've never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty.
    , @rod1963
    "Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, “Look at all the followers we’ve attracted!”"

    Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of.

    But that's the problem with religious fanatics like liberals. Their dogma and faith blind them to reality and their bloody fate.
  9. The closest thing the left has to a singular personality cult today is Barack Obama.

    • Replies: @grey enlightenment
    and the ghost of MLK

    A key to the Cult of Personality was the high-pressure “struggle session” in which true believers browbeat doubters and whip the uncommitted up into a frenzy.

    that reminds me of what Larry Summers endured by the 'tolerant, pro-science, open-minded' left
    , @anon
    The problem is Obama is too limited and lazy to do the job. He has horribly disappointed the swpl class. He will be obsolete the minute he is is not potus.
  10. @Thursday
    Straight white women are the main market for this sort of thing, but it's pretty hard for straight white women to really go all in for hating straight white men. After all, those are the guys they most want to marry and/or go to bed with.

    Notwithstanding the efforts of the YKW lobby and SJW fellow (if that isn’t taboo to say) travelers to get white women to hate white men and love everyone else, or at least to debase themselves, their families and their communities.

  11. The only true believer liberals are white loser wimpy guys

  12. I think we are seeing a lot of the social issues that actually are relatively unimportant to many people take center stage because so far, our elites and their enablers have continued to get their own way most of the time and the rest of us have not decided to “declare war” on them — yet.

    So as the big and vital issues go unresolved, the smaller ones have taken on an apparent importance they don’t really have.

    Both parties have a lot more people who vote for them than are in their highly partisan, intense and often pain-in-the-rear “base.”

  13. @ABN

    Which might account for the overrepresentation of Asians among SJWs these days; it’s less cognitively taxing for them to develop sincerity.
     
    Well, sure. Liberalism (at least the more earnest kind of liberalism, anyway) is pathological whiteness. Thus while white leftists tend to be liberal, non-white leftists tend to be illiberal. The white leftist says, "We whites are sinners. Let us repent." The non-white leftist says, "You whites are losers. Hand over the money and power already."

    As Steve put it a while back, most people outside the Western world are naturally conservative (i.e., ethnocentric and nationalistic, with concentric circles of loyalty).

    Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, "Look at all the followers we've attracted!"

    Ethnocentrism and nationalism aren’t examples of concentric circles of loyalty. Being ethnocentric or nationalistic involves leap-frogging sub-ethnic or sub-national loyalties and withholding supra-ethnic or supra-national loyalties.

    I’ve never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Shoutherners?
    , @random observer
    Pashtuns, Arabs more or less, many traditional societies overall.

    Me against everyone else.

    Me and my brother against our cousins.

    We and cousins against the rest of the clan.

    Clan against clan within tribe.

    Tribe against tribe.

    Nation [barely, and in exceptional cases]

    political ideology [ sometimes]

    Islam.

    Granted, some occasionally jump their place in the queue, but then the system is evolved to be a near-pure form of situational ethics anyway. The decisive allegiance is determined by whoever is the rival of the moment and on what level the distinction exists between oneself and him. Fluidity of these allegiances is a feature, not a bug.
  14. Yeah, the Cultural Revolution, one of the crazier moments in recent history.Estimates on the death toll run from a low of 400,000 to a high of 2 million.Of course, we’ll never know the true figure until the official archives are opened….

    And the stuff that went on:

    Men beaten for wearing neckties

    A headmistress at an elite girls’ school was beaten to death by her students on 5 August, 1966

    5,000 of Beijing’s 7,000 registered historical landmarks were destroyed

    In Guangxi, outbreaks of cannibalism were reported , and fanatical Maoists killed and ate more than a hundred “enemies of the state”

    Interestingly, various studies have suggested that the most fanatical of the Red Guards were the children of purged, middle-class parents.Trying to prove their loyalty to Mao by outdoing everybody else?

  15. The New Left adopted struggle sessions. The Weathermen employed the tactic in their early years as they prepared for “revolution.” They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc. It also had the useful benefit of chasing away all but the zealots. That way they did not have to worry too much about anyone going to the cops.

    Coincidentally, the two people who sponsored a young Barak Obama into politics were leaders of the Weathermen. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers originally imagined that the Weathermen would “freak out the squares.” It was an obsession with them. I’ve always suspected that their sponsorship of Obama was a big goof on the Chicago establishment. It just got out of hand and became a long running goof on the country.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist

    They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc.
     
    I thought those practice originated in the U.S. armed forces during the Second World War, then they moved into America's bourgeois suburbs in the 1950's and 1960's. I suspect that Robert Heinlein and his wife Virginia moved to the military community of Colorado Springs in the 1950's because they knew fellow swingers there through their contacts in the services.
  16. @countenance
    The closest thing the left has to a singular personality cult today is Barack Obama.

    and the ghost of MLK

    A key to the Cult of Personality was the high-pressure “struggle session” in which true believers browbeat doubters and whip the uncommitted up into a frenzy.

    that reminds me of what Larry Summers endured by the ‘tolerant, pro-science, open-minded’ left

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What I’m about to say goes against conservative orthodoxy, but Spandrell is correct that the SJW mode of operation is pressuring employers to fire anyone caught blaspheming, since the first amendment still protects against legal sanctions. It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal. Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties. Public debate on fundamental demographic issues would be opened if more people had the equivalent of civil service protections or strong unions behind them. One could also make a solid legal argument extending first amendment protections to employees of companies that only exist thanks to the generosity of taxpayers, like bailed out banks, defense contractors, or holders of monopoly patent rents.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I really like this idea. Would do something for the rest of America, instead of just the guys who own the companies, who believe me, are NOT your friends, regardless of what silliness about job-creating entrepreneurs they seem to be feeding you up in Conservative Central. Corporations are for globalization and diversity.
    , @Big Bill
    "Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties."

    Don't forget the Border Patrol union.
    , @josh
    Right, capitalism is not in any sense "conservative."
    , @Bill

    It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal.
     
    Tenured academics have very strong "rights against arbitrary dismissal." Maybe that's why university campuses are hotbeds of reaction?

    Also, countries which have these greater rights against arbitrary dismissal also put you in jail for crimethink. So, one might want to think hard about how the causation flows, exactly, before charging ahead with this plan.
  18. @ABN

    Which might account for the overrepresentation of Asians among SJWs these days; it’s less cognitively taxing for them to develop sincerity.
     
    Well, sure. Liberalism (at least the more earnest kind of liberalism, anyway) is pathological whiteness. Thus while white leftists tend to be liberal, non-white leftists tend to be illiberal. The white leftist says, "We whites are sinners. Let us repent." The non-white leftist says, "You whites are losers. Hand over the money and power already."

    As Steve put it a while back, most people outside the Western world are naturally conservative (i.e., ethnocentric and nationalistic, with concentric circles of loyalty).

    Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, "Look at all the followers we've attracted!"

    “Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, “Look at all the followers we’ve attracted!””

    Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of.

    But that’s the problem with religious fanatics like liberals. Their dogma and faith blind them to reality and their bloody fate.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.
  19. Does Liberalism have any real hold in non-European derived countries?

    I’m not talking about lip service, I’m talking about going out of your way to live the ideal (though you could make an arguments that liberals in the aforementioned countries want other people to walk the walk for them).

    It just doesn’t seem very Chinese. Or even very much an appealing idealism south of the Rio Grande, except for the usual Euro derived folks down that way. Let alone Africa or the ‘Stans.

    Wasn’t it Kaplan who published that “Democracy was it just a moment” article? I think you could add liberalism to that. And well American conservatism, because there sure doesn’t seem to be that much culturally conservative about it (and when culturally conservative elements emerge in it, they get stomped).

    The West (referring to the Euro derived folks) had a good run, a lot of success. And most importantly made a lot of money.

    So what happens if equally or more successful competitors emerge?

    Just don’t think you are going to be able to sell it anymore.

    And as a consequence of this, I just have to wonder what is going through the heads of our elites.

    Can’t they see the trends? That things are aligning against them continuing to have the status, influence, and wealth they are used to? That their efforts are destroying the base camp their position is based on? It’s already started in a lot of ways; we have very little ability to use our very expensive military against places where real opponents draw the line, and have the logistics to support it.

    In the coming more fiscally constrained budget era that is going to have to emerge one day, they are going to have trouble doing it against the easier opponents.

    I just can’t see our lot being allowed to operate in China or other places the way they have here. Not to mention there is no shortage of people with the ability and the hunger to take their place on the totem pole in those places. What’s Jim Rogers going to do if someone with some pull in China rips him off big time, and the US isn’t interested in intervening in some way?

    Self defeating. But what do I know? I haven’t made a ton of money selling yoga pants.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    When I was in business school the high caste Indian students were the best at aping the diversity lingo, but the lower caste folks called BS on it all the time, especially regarding skin color as a barrier. We had one amazing 'struggle session' in orientation... altruistic whites were standing up and offering thoughtful solutions to conflict and getting pummeled by the facilitators for their unspoken privileges, white horse messianism, etc. and this really dark, burly, lower caste Indian stood up and called bullshit on the whole thing. It was amazing. Derailed it completely... Oh no, I forgot, it just marched on and ignored him
  20. What’s the deal with Lululemon? They didn’t invent the tight spandex pants right? I remember seeing them before Lululemon. Are the Lululemon pants any different than other yoga pants? Or did it just have good timing with yoga becoming fashionable recently?

  21. The Z Blog says:

    The New Left adopted struggle sessions. The Weathermen employed the tactic in their early years as they prepared for “revolution.” They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc. It also had the useful benefit of chasing away all but the zealots. That way they did not have to worry too much about anyone going to the cops.”

    It also had the advantage, for the male leadership at least, of allowing them to score a lot. I’d be surprised if that were not actually one of their chief motivations.

    “Coincidentally, the two people who sponsored a young Barak Obama into politics were leaders of the Weathermen. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers originally imagined that the Weathermen would “freak out the squares.”

    Or kill them. Bernadine Dohrn publicly praised the Manson family (before they had been caught and their identity revealed) for the revolutionary zeal they displayed in slaughtering their victims. A choice piece of work is that evil bitch.

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    My read on Dohrn is she never stopped being the little Jewish girl trying to get her father's attention. Her contemporaries at the time all report that she was mostly interested in bagging the high status males, drawing attention to herself and getting a rise out of middle-class burghers like her old man.

    Collier and Horowitz both describe Ayers and a dork who used radical politics to get women. He was one of those guys who conveniently went missing when things got too serious, but he was front in center when it was time to take credit.

    Radical politics of the New Left has always had that whiff of a middle-class tantrum to it. You see that with Obama. He is by far the most petulant politician in my lifetime. The guy should have a pacifier around his neck. He has a vague idea of what he wants, but is mostly focused on his being vexed by not getting it.

    My own view is this Great Progressive Awakening is reaching its denouement: http://tinyurl.com/nbkjfuw
  22. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @The Z Blog
    The New Left adopted struggle sessions. The Weathermen employed the tactic in their early years as they prepared for "revolution." They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc. It also had the useful benefit of chasing away all but the zealots. That way they did not have to worry too much about anyone going to the cops.

    Coincidentally, the two people who sponsored a young Barak Obama into politics were leaders of the Weathermen. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers originally imagined that the Weathermen would "freak out the squares." It was an obsession with them. I've always suspected that their sponsorship of Obama was a big goof on the Chicago establishment. It just got out of hand and became a long running goof on the country.

    They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc.

    I thought those practice originated in the U.S. armed forces during the Second World War, then they moved into America’s bourgeois suburbs in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I suspect that Robert Heinlein and his wife Virginia moved to the military community of Colorado Springs in the 1950’s because they knew fellow swingers there through their contacts in the services.

  23. Who would make a good Emmanuel Goldstein? Haven Monahan? Or does such a figure need to really exist?

  24. “I’ve never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty.”

    I glanced through that American Sniper book and the big source of tension in the marriage, articulated as such, was is it “God, country, family” or “God, family, country”?

    • Replies: @Ex Submarine Officer

    I glanced through that American Sniper book and the big source of tension in the marriage, articulated as such, was is it “God, country, family” or “God, family, country”?
     
    The USMC used to, hope they still do, teach recruits:

    "God, Country, and Corps, but not necessarily in that order"

    There wasn't any mention of family other than, "If the Corps wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one".

    The good old days...

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It is really obvious that a lot of prominent promoters of this garbage are not true believers, or at least know on some level that it’s contrary to their nature. Obvious in the sense that we have evidence to the contrary. Off the top of my head I can think of a few.

    Hugo Schwyzer, anti-male writer for Jezebel, tried to murder a girlfriend, cheated on his wife, and all through his career used his male feminist cred to get poon. I don’t recall who said it, but one of the PUA bloggers had suggested that alpha male feminists are just using specialized game to get a certain type of girl. Schwyzer admitted as much in his last meltdown.

    Ben Kuchera, a particularly vengeful game “journalist” (repeatedly has tried to get people fired for various perceived wrongs, and all-around prickly jerk) who has been prominent in Gamergate, likes to play up the innocence angle on the Twitter. For example, recently expressed horror upon discovering that the term “hugbox” that he’d been using was an ableist slur against autism. The problem is that you can easily derive his character from about 15 years of public posting on the forum of a site he used to work for. Including those dark years before the discovery of social justice when he was like every other Internet Tough Guy, ye olde 2007AD.

    In the last week, prominent skeptic and founding member/attackdog for AtheismPlus (atheism PLUS social justice, seriously) Richard Carrier “came out” as having been struggling with discovering he has an alternative sexual orientation: polyamorism. It turns out that Richard Carrier has a strong urge to have multiple sexual relationships with women at the same time. Weeeird, right? This discovery of his sexual orientation has resulted in the dissolution of his marriage–well, that and the affairs. But that was part of the personal discovery process. Keep in mind, this is all after he went on Holy Jihad against atheist archbishop Michael Shermer for an alleged rape (without proof, some things skeptics don’t need to be skeptical about) all while calling him sleaze for allegedly sleeping around at conventions cheating on his wife and preying on women. Awkward!

  26. @rod1963
    "Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, “Look at all the followers we’ve attracted!”"

    Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of.

    But that's the problem with religious fanatics like liberals. Their dogma and faith blind them to reality and their bloody fate.

    “Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of.”

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    I guess, the opposite of a Muslim would be a libertarian - socially liberal, individualistic and economically right-wing. This is why most staunch opponents of Islam tend to be on the liberal right.
    , @iSteveFan

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.
     
    True conservatives would only entertain muslims as allies if they were in their own nations and opposing a foreign enemy. No true conservative would wish to have muslim allies if it meant having them live in, and become an increasingly larger part of, their society. After all, the whole point of being a conservative is to conserve. And turning your nation over to a group that has tried repeatedly, and with success, to invade and conquer your civilized corner of the world for better than a thousand years doesn't dovetail with trying to conserve.
    , @rod1963
    You're wrong.

    The proof is in the pudding, it is always the white, college educated liberal that comes to the defense of Islam in any of it's expressions. They implicitly support or ignore female genital mutilation, honor killings, murder of apostates and unbelievers, etc.

    They also support the take over of Western Europe by them as well and attack those who would resist it.

    The leaders of the West who are Lefty as can all support Islam and make excuses for it as well. ISIS couldn't have found better allies in Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and the Clintons.

    What you miss in your comparison is this: You are confusing a modern, secular idea of what constitutes Western style conservatism as opposed to what Muslims consider conservative. They are far different animals.

    A conservative Muslim is a black letter follower of Islam. That means he follows the Shariah and the Koran injunctions like jihad against unbelievers; treating unbelievers as sub-humans who have no rights except to be abused and then die; brutalizing women for any imagined slight; keeping and taking slaves; killing those who stray from Shariah; etc.

    Those guys who butchered Charlie Hebdo and those who supported them were conservative Muslims. The Muzzie who shot up part of Copenhagen got a heroes funeral by Muslims because of what he did.

    When Maj. Hassan went jihad at Ft. Hood he did it because that's what the Koran demanded of the faithful - Jihad against unbelievers.

    The Ottoman Turks who conquered the Balkans and part of Russia were just following Koranic injunctions. Those Barbary pirates who enslaved Americans during Jefferson's administration were just doing what the Koran said as well.
    , @Twinkie

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.
     
    Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people. Aside from the natural religious enmity between the two groups (the intense hostility of which goes back hundreds of years), they have radically different conceptions about government - theocracy vs. small government subsidiarity.
    , @Anonymous
    I think muslims and western conservatives have similar but not identical minds. Is not against "liberalism" or "new left". Is against desilusion and lies. Western moderate or normal conservatives are more rational and connected with bio-natural reality. Muslims are primitive bio-natural realists, include their "rational" cult, a God, man domination, hierarchical and familial social structures. White hardcore leftists are revolting against natural human order. This desilution can be treated as "lies" and obedience of "God design" or nature design can be treated as "truth". To leftists, their dogmatic cult is its truth. All religions seems born this way. Leftism too.
  27. Left-liberalism’s other problem is that its only a cultural movement, whereas communism was a cultural and economic movement. At one level this means left-liberalism can focus on what’s its’s best at, but it also means it struggles to implement its agenda across the board. Political correctness is intense in the media and women-dominated public sector organisations, but still isn’t particularly powerful in sports and male-dominated industries such as trucking and construction firms.

    From a economic perspective the liberal left are useful idiots for the liberal right – helping to get as many women as possible into the workforce, making it easier to make money out of sex, removing barriers to immigration and and assisting international capitalism by standardising cultural norms in developed and middle income countries.

    Feminists constantly complain about the sexualisation of women in advertising and the media, and aren’t too happy about hard-core porn, but they know they have to accept it as it’s the price they pay for funding from the likes of the Ford foundation.

  28. @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    I guess, the opposite of a Muslim would be a libertarian – socially liberal, individualistic and economically right-wing. This is why most staunch opponents of Islam tend to be on the liberal right.

  29. @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    True conservatives would only entertain muslims as allies if they were in their own nations and opposing a foreign enemy. No true conservative would wish to have muslim allies if it meant having them live in, and become an increasingly larger part of, their society. After all, the whole point of being a conservative is to conserve. And turning your nation over to a group that has tried repeatedly, and with success, to invade and conquer your civilized corner of the world for better than a thousand years doesn’t dovetail with trying to conserve.

  30. @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    You’re wrong.

    The proof is in the pudding, it is always the white, college educated liberal that comes to the defense of Islam in any of it’s expressions. They implicitly support or ignore female genital mutilation, honor killings, murder of apostates and unbelievers, etc.

    They also support the take over of Western Europe by them as well and attack those who would resist it.

    The leaders of the West who are Lefty as can all support Islam and make excuses for it as well. ISIS couldn’t have found better allies in Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and the Clintons.

    What you miss in your comparison is this: You are confusing a modern, secular idea of what constitutes Western style conservatism as opposed to what Muslims consider conservative. They are far different animals.

    A conservative Muslim is a black letter follower of Islam. That means he follows the Shariah and the Koran injunctions like jihad against unbelievers; treating unbelievers as sub-humans who have no rights except to be abused and then die; brutalizing women for any imagined slight; keeping and taking slaves; killing those who stray from Shariah; etc.

    Those guys who butchered Charlie Hebdo and those who supported them were conservative Muslims. The Muzzie who shot up part of Copenhagen got a heroes funeral by Muslims because of what he did.

    When Maj. Hassan went jihad at Ft. Hood he did it because that’s what the Koran demanded of the faithful – Jihad against unbelievers.

    The Ottoman Turks who conquered the Balkans and part of Russia were just following Koranic injunctions. Those Barbary pirates who enslaved Americans during Jefferson’s administration were just doing what the Koran said as well.

  31. I don’t think the chance of American “liberalism” producing a strongman is all that high. America’s mainstream leftism is now the Establishment and has been for several decades. It is essentially an ideology that seeks to preserve the status quo. In fact, the American liberal establishment, which is, in its essence, very upscale white (Jewish and non-Jewish; remember that the blacks and the browns are merely auxiliaries), may pay lip service to much revolutionary rhetoric, multiculturalism and such, but fears any significant change to the system that serves them all too well. Their rule is based on creeping suffocation of the soul, rather than “revolutionary justice” or “disappearing” people.

    If an American Caesar were to emerge in the future, I suspect he would be a “populist” who takes up the mantle of the “white working class.”

    • Replies: @Busby
    It Can't Happen Here
  32. @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people. Aside from the natural religious enmity between the two groups (the intense hostility of which goes back hundreds of years), they have radically different conceptions about government – theocracy vs. small government subsidiarity.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    "Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people."

    Perfectly true. The point is that like it or not most western countries already have sizeable Muslim minorities and there's no way of getting rid of them. And even if we could stop immigration tomorrow those Muslim minorities will continue to grow. They're a reality that we may not like, but they're a reality just the same. Having them as allies, even if it's a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies. And it might be very much preferable to having them as enemies aligned with the Left. It might also be a very useful way to split the Left and to expose the hypocrisy of their support for multi-culturalism.

    And realistically, how any potential allies do we have? As conservatives we're a very small and fairly powerless minority (I don't count neocons or libertarians as conservatives because I don't see anything remotely conservative in their positions). Even an uncomfortable potential ally might be one that we can't afford to dismiss out of hand unless we're resigned to the prospect of becoming more and more marginalised and more and more irrelevant which is where we're heading.
  33. Would it be a requirement for this prospective Big Brother to actually believe in what he is dispensing? Or would whatever could be cobbled together be secretly understood as something useful that could serve as a personal vehicle?

  34. @anonymous
    "I’ve never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty."

    I glanced through that American Sniper book and the big source of tension in the marriage, articulated as such, was is it "God, country, family" or "God, family, country"?

    I glanced through that American Sniper book and the big source of tension in the marriage, articulated as such, was is it “God, country, family” or “God, family, country”?

    The USMC used to, hope they still do, teach recruits:

    “God, Country, and Corps, but not necessarily in that order”

    There wasn’t any mention of family other than, “If the Corps wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one”.

    The good old days…

  35. @Bill P

    It would take somebody pretty brilliant to adapt est struggle session techniques to enforcing political correctness by igniting Maoist passions among Americans, but I suspect somebody at some point will figure it out.
     
    Somebody on the other side will figure it out first. Big men thrive on revolution -- not the status quo. Mao's cultural revolution was a political maneuver in which he reignited revolution to put himself back on top after technocrats had politely shoved him aside.

    Our politically correct classes are inherently paranoid about any man who might have populist appeal. They are dyed-in-the-wool anti-populists and effete by nature. They are constitutionally incapable of creating a strongman.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it's one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork -- not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork — not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    I agree. The PC SJW’s have laid most of the groundwork already by elevating increasingly tenuous and contradictory victim groups, making it much easier for someone to step up and say “Enough already!”

    Somewhat like what Spandrell is saying in his piece.

    I’d guess the “groundwork” could also include some “Idiocracy”-type comedy pointing out how idiotic things are becoming. The pushback can already be anticipated, so could be countered in the movie itself.

    Maybe Steve could write the screenplay.

  36. @Bill P

    It would take somebody pretty brilliant to adapt est struggle session techniques to enforcing political correctness by igniting Maoist passions among Americans, but I suspect somebody at some point will figure it out.
     
    Somebody on the other side will figure it out first. Big men thrive on revolution -- not the status quo. Mao's cultural revolution was a political maneuver in which he reignited revolution to put himself back on top after technocrats had politely shoved him aside.

    Our politically correct classes are inherently paranoid about any man who might have populist appeal. They are dyed-in-the-wool anti-populists and effete by nature. They are constitutionally incapable of creating a strongman.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it's one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork -- not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.

    I know this sounds odd, but I fear someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear.

    Enemies I am comfortable with – I know where to aim the rifle. Someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear, on the other hand, is liable to stab me in the back just when I need him the most. So I tend to watch the leaders of my team carefully and, at all times, keep them honest… which is a conservative trait – understanding the fallibility of Man, and guarding against it at all times.

    Besides, I already believe in one Savior; I don’t have a room for a second.

    • Replies: @Bill P

    I know this sounds odd, but I fear someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear.

    Enemies I am comfortable with – I know where to aim the rifle. Someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear, on the other hand, is liable to stab me in the back just when I need him the most. So I tend to watch the leaders of my team carefully and, at all times, keep them honest… which is a conservative trait – understanding the fallibility of Man, and guarding against it at all times.

    Besides, I already believe in one Savior; I don’t have a room for a second.
     
    The best constraint on a leader is a solid ideological and legal framework. We Americans may have been lucky on the first go round to get General Washington as our very first Big Man, but we also made sure that there were strong checks on power and a republican philosophy while retaining English common law (and in fact using that ancient law to bolster the case for liberty and self-determination).

    The problem with a Stalin, Hitler and Mao is that there was no legal or philosophical precedent or constitution (with any teeth) to restrain them. Gen. Franco, on the other hand, was very much a leader of the old Catholic tradition, so he was pretty reasonable as fascists go. And I suspect the church had some influence on Fidel Castro as well. Those who totally severed their politics from tradition were the most horrible of all.

    When there are big changes, there are Big Men. The two go hand in hand. I'm no fan of authoritarianism, so if we're going to have one let's find ourselves another Washington. The best way to accomplish that is to set out the philosophy and restraints on power in advance, and let the big man grow into them.
  37. The increasingly nutty far left can’t actually require ‘struggle sessions’ in the sense of requiring people to affirmatively speak up for their orthodoxy, but what they can do is enforce silence when extremists peddle BS. And that has been more successful than you’d think in achieving actual legal change — e.g. now California is requiring high schools to let guys with a dress into womens’ bathrooms and sports teams. But in terms of broader political influence I think in the long run it backfires — tends to contaminate the entire liberal agenda with the worst kind of identity politics. For middle-class types like me who wouldn’t mind seeing higher taxes on the wealthiest oligarchs and no cuts in social security benefits, that’s not actually a good thing. I’m sure some appreciate it though.

    People make easy comparisons to Mao but of course the situation in China was quite different. People don’t appreciate what a bloodbath of savagery, famine, civil war, etc. China was over the century *before* the Communists took over. Initial Chinese Communist success in increasing life expectancy bought Mao a lot of legitimacy. Compare the situation in the US, where the past century is hardly a hellish thing we need to escape from.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    Another thing that many Westerners don't get about why Mao is so popular to this day is that he unified China. Chinese history is one dynasty following another, sometimes when a dynasty crumbled it split China into smaller parts. The call this "splitism" and it is a very big deal in Chinese history, this is more of a disaster than losing a few millions in famines or wars. Mao was not just about some personality cult, it goes to the core of Chinese civilization and values.

    Just like Americans who behave like blundering oafs with regards to the Russia/Ukraine history, one day there will be a McCain like idiot who wants to grant Taiwan full independence. The Chinese will treat this beyond what even Lincoln did with regards to independence from the US, they will view this a threat to their civilization. I pray to never see the day when this happens, because things will get nuclear very fast.

  38. @Hepp
    A thought I've had: maybe that's the best thing about liberalism. It's so absurd and so anti-human nature, that as an official ideology it will never be able to compel millions to die for it the way that nationalism did in the two World Wars and religion did centuries ago. Imagine men going off to war to make sure Bill and Steve can get married, or so little girls won't get to pretend to be princesses. For all the faults of modern elites, they've at least kept the world relatively peaceful.

    Maybe that’s why liberals always try to make people fight AGAINST something, rather than FOR something. Making people vote not FOR multiculturalism, but AGAINST white / patriarchal / heterosexual oppression. The people who would have you fired for an un-PC opinion are always the same ones who urge you to vote against mostly imaginary right-wing oppression.

    During WWII, Stalin urged the Soviet citizens to fight against fascism, not for communism. Indeed, the communists rediscovered patriotism during WWII: in the USSR, they called WWII “the Great Patriotic War”.

  39. “The only true believer liberals are white loser wimpy guys”

    Small consolation. Fraudulent boots hurt just as much when applied to the throat.

    And when the absurd frenzy is over, all people will denounce the madness and there will not be a former believer to be found. The ranks of the resistance will be swollen with chilled-out psychopaths wearing moccasins, flip-flop beach shoes and sneakers – anything but boots.

  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No, Steve. It’s not about ‘big man’ personality cults, it’s far more nuanced than that.
    The whole leitmotif can really be summed up in a few words ie the modern Democrat Party. Continuing with the Chinese analogy, it’s more like that fabled ‘Chinese water torture’ something we’ve all read about, but doubt if it ever existed. You know the story, a continual drip-drip-drip of individual drops of water onto a shaved pate ad infinitum. Ha! Child’s play, say the incredulous, but, apparently, it’s one of the most fiendish tortures ever devised. Claimed to reduce the toughest recalcitrants into quiver ring, jibbering wrecks of a jelly in a few days. Was it ever tries at Guantanamo?
    Anyhow, my point is that the continual low level, incessant drubbing from the party of the Totem Pole, over ‘microagression’, ‘glass ceilings’ , ‘invisible knapsacks’, ‘white privilege’, ‘gender pay gap’, ‘Ferguson’, has its effect. One soon loses the will to live, and throws in the towel.

  41. I get no google hits for Mao’s Mangoes as a band name. Its all mine moo haa haa

  42. @Anonymous
    Ethnocentrism and nationalism aren't examples of concentric circles of loyalty. Being ethnocentric or nationalistic involves leap-frogging sub-ethnic or sub-national loyalties and withholding supra-ethnic or supra-national loyalties.

    I've never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty.

    Shoutherners?

  43. Here is an alternate family tree for est:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.theravada/8_nTvE8vXlY

    Nuremberg Zen was promulgated first by D.T. Suzuki’s
    . work with Paul Carus, then by Eugen Herrigel’s Zen in the
    . Art of Archery (and the many who copies: Zen in the Art
    . of Marketing, Sales, Bakery, etc.) and finally by Alan Watts,
    . the Norman Vincent Peale of Zen. Nuremberg Zen creates
    . the environment of chaos and widespread misery that are
    . the preconditions for the spread of more toxic forms of
    . Zen.

    Stanford Zen: This is the Lay organization of Zen. It was
    . developed in conjunction with the activities of Frederic
    . Spiegelberg, a Lutheran who taught theology at the
    . University of Dresden, and fleeing the effects of Nuremberg
    . Zen in Germany, came to teach at Stanford, and founded
    . the American Academy of Asian Studies with Alan Watts
    . and others, which became the California Institute of Integral
    . Studies, after it spawned Esalen with Richard Price and
    . Michael Murphy. Esalen was the proving ground for the
    . Large Group Awareness Therapy organizations, of which
    . Werner Erhard’s EST was most prominent. EST morphed
    . into a business school executive training seminar
    . organization called the Landmark Forum, or Landmark
    . Education, which has now become the de facto Lay
    . organization for Zen, projecting itself onto Wall Street and
    . the Fortune 500.

  44. @Anonymous
    What I'm about to say goes against conservative orthodoxy, but Spandrell is correct that the SJW mode of operation is pressuring employers to fire anyone caught blaspheming, since the first amendment still protects against legal sanctions. It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal. Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties. Public debate on fundamental demographic issues would be opened if more people had the equivalent of civil service protections or strong unions behind them. One could also make a solid legal argument extending first amendment protections to employees of companies that only exist thanks to the generosity of taxpayers, like bailed out banks, defense contractors, or holders of monopoly patent rents.

    I really like this idea. Would do something for the rest of America, instead of just the guys who own the companies, who believe me, are NOT your friends, regardless of what silliness about job-creating entrepreneurs they seem to be feeding you up in Conservative Central. Corporations are for globalization and diversity.

    • Replies: @blah blah blah
    I'm with Bill D / SFG, I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent.
    , @silviosilver
    That doesn't negate the fact that they are job-creators and highly efficient providers of eminently desirable goods - no matter what drivel they feed you at Moonbat Central.
  45. @SFG
    I really like this idea. Would do something for the rest of America, instead of just the guys who own the companies, who believe me, are NOT your friends, regardless of what silliness about job-creating entrepreneurs they seem to be feeding you up in Conservative Central. Corporations are for globalization and diversity.

    I’m with Bill D / SFG, I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    "I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent."

    Big business is a friend of whoever has the power. Big business has zero morality. They're not immoral, just moral. If the Left has the power they will grovel to the Left. If there's money to be made by getting into bed with Big Government they will go for it. Big business has abandoned the Right because the Right is powerless. Big business has become an ally of our greatest enemy, not from conviction but from self-interest. As long as the mainstream Right (the Republicans in the US, the Tories in Britain) remains cowardly and weak Big Business will be an enemy of the Right. From the point of view of Big Business what is the point of supporting the mainstream political Right when it is treacherous, weak and cowardly and can offer them nothing?

    The answer is not to declare war against Big Business. The answer is to make the Right powerful again. When that happens they will dump the Left.

    There is a real problem though when Big Business becomes transnational. It then has no loyalties whatsoever to anything but itself. Half a century ago it was generally true that what was good for business was good for the nation. That is no longer true. That is the weakness of globalism - it creates immensely powerful corporations whose interests do not coincide with those of the nation. Capitalism is terrific when it's national. It's not so terrific when it's transnational.
  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @dfordoom
    "Yep. Like Muslims who are currently the darlings of the Left. Whom the Liberals think as fellow travelers. But in reality more Conservative and retrograde than they can even conceive of."

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.

    I think muslims and western conservatives have similar but not identical minds. Is not against “liberalism” or “new left”. Is against desilusion and lies. Western moderate or normal conservatives are more rational and connected with bio-natural reality. Muslims are primitive bio-natural realists, include their “rational” cult, a God, man domination, hierarchical and familial social structures. White hardcore leftists are revolting against natural human order. This desilution can be treated as “lies” and obedience of “God design” or nature design can be treated as “truth”. To leftists, their dogmatic cult is its truth. All religions seems born this way. Leftism too.

  47. @SFG
    I really like this idea. Would do something for the rest of America, instead of just the guys who own the companies, who believe me, are NOT your friends, regardless of what silliness about job-creating entrepreneurs they seem to be feeding you up in Conservative Central. Corporations are for globalization and diversity.

    That doesn’t negate the fact that they are job-creators and highly efficient providers of eminently desirable goods – no matter what drivel they feed you at Moonbat Central.

  48. @MQ
    The increasingly nutty far left can't actually require 'struggle sessions' in the sense of requiring people to affirmatively speak up for their orthodoxy, but what they can do is enforce silence when extremists peddle BS. And that has been more successful than you'd think in achieving actual legal change -- e.g. now California is requiring high schools to let guys with a dress into womens' bathrooms and sports teams. But in terms of broader political influence I think in the long run it backfires -- tends to contaminate the entire liberal agenda with the worst kind of identity politics. For middle-class types like me who wouldn't mind seeing higher taxes on the wealthiest oligarchs and no cuts in social security benefits, that's not actually a good thing. I'm sure some appreciate it though.

    People make easy comparisons to Mao but of course the situation in China was quite different. People don't appreciate what a bloodbath of savagery, famine, civil war, etc. China was over the century *before* the Communists took over. Initial Chinese Communist success in increasing life expectancy bought Mao a lot of legitimacy. Compare the situation in the US, where the past century is hardly a hellish thing we need to escape from.

    Another thing that many Westerners don’t get about why Mao is so popular to this day is that he unified China. Chinese history is one dynasty following another, sometimes when a dynasty crumbled it split China into smaller parts. The call this “splitism” and it is a very big deal in Chinese history, this is more of a disaster than losing a few millions in famines or wars. Mao was not just about some personality cult, it goes to the core of Chinese civilization and values.

    Just like Americans who behave like blundering oafs with regards to the Russia/Ukraine history, one day there will be a McCain like idiot who wants to grant Taiwan full independence. The Chinese will treat this beyond what even Lincoln did with regards to independence from the US, they will view this a threat to their civilization. I pray to never see the day when this happens, because things will get nuclear very fast.

    • Replies: @MQ
    Right Neutral, the bloody century of civil war, famine, and mass death over the century prior to the Chinese Communist takeover had everything to do with the inability to unify the country, prevent civil conflict and resist foreign invaders. A couple of million extra dead was a price they were willing to pay to end that. And the ChiComs unification of the country, bloody as it was, set the stage for the success the Chinese have today.

    A little funny to compare your the diversity preacher at the local U to the world-historic tyrant forged in that crucible...
  49. We ought to remember 2008. I would say that Obama served as Big Brother during that time, given how crazy so many people were for Obama. Remember the Hope and Change posters?

    Bush also served as Emmanuel Goldstein in 2008. Bush was just handsome enough to look like a strong, evil white man, but also goofy enough to look like an incompetent fool. This meant that Bush could be portrayed as a bloodthirsty, greedy, terrifying tyrant in one breath and a comical buffoon on the next. Effective propaganda allows you to both fear and laugh at your foe.

    I would say leftist mania reached its most effective pitch thus far in 2008. So what happened? As it turned out, Obama wasn’t a particularly competent or inspiring leader in office. People became ever less enthused about him as time passed, though he was able to galvanize enough voters again in 2012. Bush also receded into obscurity, so he couldn’t be held as a living target the way Jiang Qing made sure that Liu Shaoqi would be for the first years of the Cultural Revolution.

    Since 2008, leftist attention has evolved from wresting power from the right, to suffocating the general populace in politically correct thinking. It has become more insidious and pervasive, but not as effective in generating bellyfeel the way it did in 2008.

  50. @Anonymous
    What I'm about to say goes against conservative orthodoxy, but Spandrell is correct that the SJW mode of operation is pressuring employers to fire anyone caught blaspheming, since the first amendment still protects against legal sanctions. It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal. Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties. Public debate on fundamental demographic issues would be opened if more people had the equivalent of civil service protections or strong unions behind them. One could also make a solid legal argument extending first amendment protections to employees of companies that only exist thanks to the generosity of taxpayers, like bailed out banks, defense contractors, or holders of monopoly patent rents.

    “Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties.”

    Don’t forget the Border Patrol union.

  51. @Mr. Anon
    The Z Blog says:

    The New Left adopted struggle sessions. The Weathermen employed the tactic in their early years as they prepared for “revolution.” They also made members engage is orgies and mate swapping in order to cleanse them of bourgeois materialism, sexism, etc. It also had the useful benefit of chasing away all but the zealots. That way they did not have to worry too much about anyone going to the cops."

    It also had the advantage, for the male leadership at least, of allowing them to score a lot. I'd be surprised if that were not actually one of their chief motivations.

    "Coincidentally, the two people who sponsored a young Barak Obama into politics were leaders of the Weathermen. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers originally imagined that the Weathermen would “freak out the squares."

    Or kill them. Bernadine Dohrn publicly praised the Manson family (before they had been caught and their identity revealed) for the revolutionary zeal they displayed in slaughtering their victims. A choice piece of work is that evil bitch.

    My read on Dohrn is she never stopped being the little Jewish girl trying to get her father’s attention. Her contemporaries at the time all report that she was mostly interested in bagging the high status males, drawing attention to herself and getting a rise out of middle-class burghers like her old man.

    Collier and Horowitz both describe Ayers and a dork who used radical politics to get women. He was one of those guys who conveniently went missing when things got too serious, but he was front in center when it was time to take credit.

    Radical politics of the New Left has always had that whiff of a middle-class tantrum to it. You see that with Obama. He is by far the most petulant politician in my lifetime. The guy should have a pacifier around his neck. He has a vague idea of what he wants, but is mostly focused on his being vexed by not getting it.

    My own view is this Great Progressive Awakening is reaching its denouement: http://tinyurl.com/nbkjfuw

    • Replies: @donut
    I recently watched "The Baader Meinhof Complex" and "The Weather Underground" on Netflix and Amazon . The contrasts between the two groups were interesting with the Americans appearing to be puerile asses and the Germans as dangerous doctrinaire juvenile delinquents . But both groups complete assholes to a man (or woman) . Interestingly Mark Rudd said it was difficult for him to talk about that time because he was ashamed of his actions . While Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant . One thing they all had in common both German and American was that NONE of them had ever done an honest days work in their lives .
  52. Obama as the Black messiah for libs sputtered out. The word my lib Facebook friends use most often these days about Obama is ‘disappointed’. Gitmo is still open, etc. Libs trying to use Ferguson to ignite a radical populist anti-racist movement backfired. White people can be hectored into feeling guilty about slavery, but mobs of looting, violent blacks is scary. ‘Selma’ lost to ‘American Sniper’ at the box office. LGBTs are still on the advance, but they are pushing things too far. Most Americans have been browbeat into accepting gay marriage, but having an assigned-at-birth dude with an intact penis in the municipal pool’s women’s locker is going too far, even for lib moms.

  53. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “What they try to do is to not have a single patriarchal Big Brother, just have an Emmanuel Goldstein hate symbol to unify around by hating cisgender straight white gentile males.”

    Perhaps Steve hasn’t noticed, but certain cisgender straight white Jewish males easily qualify for Goldstein status. For example, if I had to identify the single figure most hated by progressives worldwide these days (including most of the Jewish progressive “intelligentsia” of the US and Israel), it would be Binyamin Netanyahu. Nobody else, not even the Koch brothers, comes close. Take a look at what college students have been demonstrating about lately.

    Of course, American traditionalist rightwingers also hate Netanyahu, apparently based on the belief that he’s masterminding Obama’s immigration policy from behind the scenes. On this view, I suppose, the apparent hatred between Obama and Netanyahu is just a smokescreen.

  54. @rustbeltreader
    Absurd things that almost happened: Montana's yoga pants ban
    "No one is safe from this menace. They are in the streets. They are coming for you. Making you … think things. Making you feel feelings. They are slipping into your dreams and filling them with Lewd Images, beyond all your power to control. They must be stopped — by law, if necessary." WaPo
    I'd say idiot and Congress...I'd be repeating myself though.

    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    This has been going on for some time, hasn't it? Well before yoga pants there were leggings which go back 25 years or so. Like yoga pants, leggings allowed a woman to fairly explicitly display her legs an derriere even in winter months. Personally, I'm not complaining.
    , @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    No civil society should condone women (or men) wearing clothing which effectively displays their genitalia. Heck, it's not just uncivilized, it's ... animalistic?
    , @Forbes
    "Nothing gets between me and my Calvin's"--starting in 1980, the year Brooke Shields turned 15. No woman, still a girl. That's 35 years ago. You've some catching up to do.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK2VZgJ4AoM
  55. @Twinkie

    Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.
     
    Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people. Aside from the natural religious enmity between the two groups (the intense hostility of which goes back hundreds of years), they have radically different conceptions about government - theocracy vs. small government subsidiarity.

    “Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people.”

    Perfectly true. The point is that like it or not most western countries already have sizeable Muslim minorities and there’s no way of getting rid of them. And even if we could stop immigration tomorrow those Muslim minorities will continue to grow. They’re a reality that we may not like, but they’re a reality just the same. Having them as allies, even if it’s a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies. And it might be very much preferable to having them as enemies aligned with the Left. It might also be a very useful way to split the Left and to expose the hypocrisy of their support for multi-culturalism.

    And realistically, how any potential allies do we have? As conservatives we’re a very small and fairly powerless minority (I don’t count neocons or libertarians as conservatives because I don’t see anything remotely conservative in their positions). Even an uncomfortable potential ally might be one that we can’t afford to dismiss out of hand unless we’re resigned to the prospect of becoming more and more marginalised and more and more irrelevant which is where we’re heading.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    " Having them as allies, even if it’s a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies."

    Muslims have already declared that all Christians on the planet are their enemies. So your Christian-Muslim alliance scenario is just fantasy land talk.

    Tell your Muslim brothers and sisters to stop murdering Christians and stop raping Christian women and stop committing terrorist attacks on countries founded by White European Christians and than we will talk about a Christian-Muslim alliance.

    Until than, make like a tree and leave. Take your B.S proposed alliance and stick it where the sun don't shine.

  56. @Anonymous
    What I'm about to say goes against conservative orthodoxy, but Spandrell is correct that the SJW mode of operation is pressuring employers to fire anyone caught blaspheming, since the first amendment still protects against legal sanctions. It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal. Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties. Public debate on fundamental demographic issues would be opened if more people had the equivalent of civil service protections or strong unions behind them. One could also make a solid legal argument extending first amendment protections to employees of companies that only exist thanks to the generosity of taxpayers, like bailed out banks, defense contractors, or holders of monopoly patent rents.

    Right, capitalism is not in any sense “conservative.”

  57. @Thursday
    Straight white women are the main market for this sort of thing, but it's pretty hard for straight white women to really go all in for hating straight white men. After all, those are the guys they most want to marry and/or go to bed with.

    Someone once said that there will never be an ultimate winner in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. Bitter lesbian types really would like to destroy white men (not only fits their political ideology but cuts the dating competition) but most heterosexual women understand on some level that it is not in their interest.

  58. Thanks for the link.

    The American enterpreneurial spirit and long tradition of innovative religion may well come up with the ultimate Interaction Ritual to provide material for progressives to compete and take each other out.

    One of the interesting aspects of the madness of the Cultural Revolution is that most people remember it fondly (some stuff here http://www.zo.uni-heidelberg.de/sinologie/institute/staff/mittler/ )

    They remember the great posters, the songs, the dances, the trips around the country on free trains to go struggle against other Red Guards. All of this was spontaneous, they came up with the songs and the dances and the cool rituals, and they loved it. And beating up all those reactionary kids to death was also great fun.

    However the existence of an actual guy behind the whole thing, Mao, had to be important, even if the cultural revolution run on autopilot by the people’s religious instinct to be on the side of power and avoid being attacked. Mao applied just the right amount of pressure to keep the thing going without having to run the thing himself. And while he couldn’t stop it, they eventually got to manage it quite well. They were a Communist government after all.

    Decentralized leftism isn’t unprecedented, there’s the Reformation, the English civil war, hell the history of Western Civilization has been a slow and steady leftist move for centuries already. And while every collapse brings a sharp rightist correction (Monck, Napoleon), those never stick, do they? Leftism just works so much better as a social currency to use to take your rivals down.

  59. @Anonymous
    Back in the 50s and 60s, communism wasn't a wholly discredited system. Lots of people including non-communists sincerely believed that it could deliver material progress and even surpass capitalism materially.

    Not just the ’50s and the ’60s. When I was at Wharton in the mid ’70s, they brought someone from Larry Klein’s shop in to guest lecture my Econ class (Klein was the Nobel Prize winning father of econometric forecasting – he had also belonged to the Communist Party in the ’40s). This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP. Nothing ideological about this, it was a simple mathematical fact.

    It apparently never occurred to these guys that the Soviets were issuing phony statistics or that their growth could not continue in a linear fashion. But it was in their own professional interest that the US switch to a planned economy. In a free market economy, econometricians are like weather forecasters (and usually not very good ones). In a planned economy, they are like God – they MAKE the weather.

    It’s also worth noting that in the ’70s, the per capita GNP of North Korea was still higher than South Korea’s (even allowing for phoniness in the N. Korean stats). Communism really was capable of producing industrial goods, up to a certain point. Yes, they used unethical means such as forced labor and theft of Western intellectual property and physical assets, but there was a time when they were actually able to make stuff (a lot of it military goods, but never mind). But at some point the “contradictions” caught up with them and it all fell apart.

    • Replies: @FWIW
    "This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP."

    It is still going on. It is irresistible to draw a line between a few data points and find a inescapable trend. The same happened with Japan vs US. Their industrial policy .. quasi planned economy was going to crush the US. I specifically remember the moaning and groaning about how they were allowing them to take over the vital dram business. They won big ... and the rest is history. I am particularly annoyed that 'quality' and industrial policy were destroying American industry. When the major factors were a devalued Yen and low cost of capital.

    It is still going on with China. Extrapolate their growth rate and they will be a Switzerland of 1.5 billion people. Having gone decades since any capital investment, any and everything was a huge success. Now they have ghost cities. The more developed an economy, the more difficult it is to efficiently allocate capital.
    , @Brutusale
    Yet people like Robert Heinlein, after visiting the Soviet Union in 1960, instinctively knew that Moscow's infrastructure couldn't support its stated population, which was confirmed by a Naval officer buddy after he came home.

    As the chapter in his book about it says, Pravda means Truth.
  60. @Twinkie
    I don't think the chance of American "liberalism" producing a strongman is all that high. America's mainstream leftism is now the Establishment and has been for several decades. It is essentially an ideology that seeks to preserve the status quo. In fact, the American liberal establishment, which is, in its essence, very upscale white (Jewish and non-Jewish; remember that the blacks and the browns are merely auxiliaries), may pay lip service to much revolutionary rhetoric, multiculturalism and such, but fears any significant change to the system that serves them all too well. Their rule is based on creeping suffocation of the soul, rather than "revolutionary justice" or "disappearing" people.

    If an American Caesar were to emerge in the future, I suspect he would be a "populist" who takes up the mantle of the "white working class."

    It Can’t Happen Here

  61. maybe the older religions, islam and christianity will have a huge comeback in western societies. thats because demography is destiny. As we know the majority of the world population will be of subsaharan african ancestry by 2100 and the 21 century will see huge immigration for subsaharan africa to europe, asia and america. In subsaharan africa modern ideologies like antiracism, communism are really not that important, but the older religions are. the people will bring their religion with them

  62. @Whiskey
    Obama is Mao. Rudy and Scott Walkers mild criticism have ignited a firestorm of hate.

    Obama worship is the key to a Maoist nightmare. Crucially, the current Chinese regime ignores rather than debunks Mao. I have serious doubts that Obama will willinglly leave the White House to live in Bush style obscurity.

    What is he going to do? Abrogate the Constitution? Foment a coup? You must be drinking some of your namesake beverage. There is zero support for Obama staying on even among rabid Leftists. No one has even floated a trial balloon about amending the Constitution or having him run as VP or some other ploy. Anyway, it’s Hillary’s turn.

    The US has a strong Constitutional system. Occasionally, someone (Roosevelt) will infect the system but even he was not strong enough to kill it and at some point the system’s immune response pushed back (rejection of the Court packing scheme, passage of the 22nd Amendment). Obama has also tried some extra-Constitutional ploys (immigration) but they won’t last either.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Not so sure about that he will have effective control of 12% of the population and they'll support him passionately. Obama can cause a lot of damage going forward but ironically mostly in Dem circles. I read a report about Chicago's mayoral election they interviewed black people that admitted to voting for Rahm simply based on Obama's endorsement.

    Hillary is going to have a tough time of it. Can she get whites back into the tent without offending Obama? I love how the media is making Rudy's comments out to be an issue for the GOP. Obama is a millstone on the Dems not the GOP.
  63. The Weathermen held critic sessions, ripping into one another for their weaknesses. A few of the men were ticked off that they had to share their girlfriends with the others but they never got to bang Bernardine Dohrn. Dohrn usually was linked to the leader of the movement and he usually refused to share her with the rank and file. Of course, at Dohrn’s whim she would have other men, just that she refused to do so at the command of others.

    Here’s a quote from a book “Destructive Generation”:

    Speaking of Dohrn, Jim Mellen, a fellow radical, said of her: “She used sex to explore and cement political alliances. Sex for her was a form of ideological activity.”

    Mark Rudd, a Weatherman leader, “was piqued by Bernardine’s elitist disdain for the non-monogamy code [a Weatherman rule]. “Power doesn’t flow out of the barrel of a gun,” he challenged her at a Weather Bureau meeting. “Power flows out of Bernardine’s cunt.” He was challenged for being sexist so the statement was changed to “Bernardine’s cunt goes to wherever the power is.” Everyone agreed on that.

  64. The difference between the leftism/communism/socialism of the past was that it was strongly masculine. It subjugated by force. The current incarnation is a uniquely feminine version. Instead of using direct force they use psychology to brow beat, shame and guilt people into compliance. Anyone married or who has a domineering mother will easily recognize these tactics.

    • Replies: @Mack0
    What I mean is that it was driven my masculine impulses. It gained power through warfare. It's major thinkers and movement leaders were male. Initially the sixties radicals like Ayers tried to use the traditional masculine means of revolution but they failed. Women had greater more direct role and influenced the means of war to a great degree. Instead of dragging a society through a revolution kicking and screaming by force they focused on changing society through a long term process of nurturing. The gestation process begins in head start and continues on through higher education.
  65. @Mack0
    The difference between the leftism/communism/socialism of the past was that it was strongly masculine. It subjugated by force. The current incarnation is a uniquely feminine version. Instead of using direct force they use psychology to brow beat, shame and guilt people into compliance. Anyone married or who has a domineering mother will easily recognize these tactics.

    What I mean is that it was driven my masculine impulses. It gained power through warfare. It’s major thinkers and movement leaders were male. Initially the sixties radicals like Ayers tried to use the traditional masculine means of revolution but they failed. Women had greater more direct role and influenced the means of war to a great degree. Instead of dragging a society through a revolution kicking and screaming by force they focused on changing society through a long term process of nurturing. The gestation process begins in head start and continues on through higher education.

  66. Here are a couple of weaknesses in the current system that have retarded its drive toward Maoist-level mania.

    First, the lack of a single Cult of Personality figure, a Big Brother, to worship. ….

    Second, the current round of struggle sessions for political correctness appear to be pretty lame at arousing the masses.

    Because of the Baby Boom, the USA is dominated culturally by people whose ages range from 50 to 70. They are long past youthful feelings of guilt for inheriting “unfair advantages” from their parents.

    The “White Privilege” guilt-tripping is effective mostly among people whose ages range from about 15 to 25, when their success really might depend significantly on their parents’ help.

    The struggle-session guilt-trip tactic was effective in China and other Communist countries when the 15-to-25 age group was a disproportionately large portion of the population. The tactic’s ultimate purpose was to radicalize the society’s younger people to attack and overthrow its oldest people.

    That tactic cannot succeed in the current USA, which is dominated by the Baby Boomers.

  67. Obama is Mao. Rudy and Scott Walkers mild criticism have ignited a firestorm of hate.

    Obama worship is the key to a Maoist nightmare. Crucially, the current Chinese regime ignores rather than debunks Mao. I have serious doubts that Obama will willinglly leave the White House to live in Bush style obscurity.

    The man’s an empty suit. He’s going to gladly step down and go on to become far and away the wealthiest ex-PotUS in history.

    The fact that you’ve repeatedly stated or implied that Obama refusing to step down will be even a scintilla of a thing suggests you’re a few bricks shy of a load. Of course, I hold on to the vain hope that “Bush style obscurity” is your escape clause; of course his retirement won’t be handled like Bush’s by the media.

    Meanwhile, liberal true believers look up at the vultures circling above them and think, “Look at all the followers we’ve attracted!”

    The imagery is strong with this one.

    For middle-class types like me who wouldn’t mind seeing higher taxes on the wealthiest oligarchs

    I’m no conservative, but yeah, I have no problem with progressive taxation. In fact, I definitely prefer them to oligarch-designed schemes like “flat taxes.” My problem is mostly about the specifics.

    People make easy comparisons to Mao but of course the situation in China was quite different. […] Compare the situation in the US, where the past century is hardly a hellish thing we need to escape from.

    This. Communism won in places like Russia and China and Cambodia. Fertile environments. The USA is not a fertile environment.

    Anyhow, my point is that the continual low level, incessant drubbing from the party of the Totem Pole, over ‘microagression’, ‘glass ceilings’ , ‘invisible knapsacks’, ‘white privilege’, ‘gender pay gap’, ‘Ferguson’, has its effect. One soon loses the will to live, and throws in the towel.

    “Gaslighting” is another good analogy.

    Corporations are for globalization and diversity.

    Globalization is obviously in corporate interests. But diversity? I think diversity is one of those things that corporations fell in line with because they had to. Legal/social fig leaf. I’d be fine with someone proving me wrong on this.

  68. The Cultural Revolution also took place when China’s population was heavily skewed towards young people. This created a critical mass of enthusiastic young people to take part in mob activity, and nearly all of that population of young people had only grown up under the People’s Republic.

    Look at the population pyramid of China at the height of the cultural revolution:
    http://populationpyramid.net/china/1970/

    Chinese authority figures at the local level had also been discredited by the radical back and forth swings in official ideology over the prior 20 years. A steady drumbeat of attacking people in authority who were out of favor with the current policy as “rightists”, Soviet spies, or reactionaries, with the terms of abuse and their targets changing every few years de-legitimized authority figures in the eyes of young people – making them much easier targets for a radical movement to wipe away all existing authority.

    A Cultural Revolution dynamic isn’t likely without both of those factors and the institutional prestige Mao still enjoyed from his early success (with the failures careful covered up).

  69. Looking on the good side: Mao’s second cult of personality ended with a decisive loss, the Gang of Four deposed, and Deng introducing a modified system of property and markets. It had gone too far and people were sick of it.

  70. @Anonymous
    What I'm about to say goes against conservative orthodoxy, but Spandrell is correct that the SJW mode of operation is pressuring employers to fire anyone caught blaspheming, since the first amendment still protects against legal sanctions. It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal. Steve has often pointed out that public sector police and firefighter unions have been about the only groups brave enough to challenge affirmative action travesties. Public debate on fundamental demographic issues would be opened if more people had the equivalent of civil service protections or strong unions behind them. One could also make a solid legal argument extending first amendment protections to employees of companies that only exist thanks to the generosity of taxpayers, like bailed out banks, defense contractors, or holders of monopoly patent rents.

    It might be time to revisit the employment at will doctrine that is unique to almost unique to America, except Montana, and go the way of Germany and many other successful countries that give employees greater rights against arbitrary dismissal.

    Tenured academics have very strong “rights against arbitrary dismissal.” Maybe that’s why university campuses are hotbeds of reaction?

    Also, countries which have these greater rights against arbitrary dismissal also put you in jail for crimethink. So, one might want to think hard about how the causation flows, exactly, before charging ahead with this plan.

  71. @countenance
    The closest thing the left has to a singular personality cult today is Barack Obama.

    The problem is Obama is too limited and lazy to do the job. He has horribly disappointed the swpl class. He will be obsolete the minute he is is not potus.

    • Replies: @Forbes

    Obama will be obsolete the minute he is not potus.
     
    Not likely. The media love, love, love him. Obama demonstrates so little self-awareness, is so infatuated with his own brilliance, the media will seek him out at every opportunity, and Obama will speak out, talk, and lecture on any topic--like Pavlov's dog. Eyeballs. Ratings. Buzz.

    Who's gonna be the media's go-to guy? He becomes the Democrat Party Senior Statesman on everything. As an incompetent lame duck, Obama still gets high-40s approval ratings.

    And the "clean and articulate" Obama will immediately occupy the role as the go-to black guy. Jackson's been superseded by Sharpton, and media-challenged Sharpton returns to the rabble-rouser role.

    W did the same thing his father did, went away. They has enough respect for the presidency (and self-respect) to not want to be part of the national conversation. Obama is the opposite animal.
  72. I think the possibility is much better for a Hate Figure to appear. George W. Bush had the stature, but not the personality, since he’s quite affable, and was, after all, a Yale Man. Romney and other miscellaneous presidential candidates lack the personality. What’s needed is somebody like a William F. Buckley or a Milton Friedman who gets national press, is a bit eccentric, enjoys being attacked by idiots, and likes to tease liberals into a frenzy. When such a person appears, he’s most likely to be an actor, an athlete, or a TV personality. My bet would be on the athlete.

  73. Est and its communist, Maoist ilk are not necessary.

    The mechanism – the Maoist session – has been in place since the late 1940’s:

    Television.

    By the age at which people mature enough to see through TV programming’s (and what is the Maoist “struggle session” but…programming?) seduction to supineness, those matured, wised-up people (and, to be sure, not all of the mature elders have wised-up) are already too old to effect, or to join together to effect, the programming’s overthrow. Why would the organizing and conduct of struggle sessions be necessary when TV programming delivers mass-inculcation with lie-down-and-die-ism – and, at the same time, persuades, convinces the mass audience that lying down and dying without so much as a murmur of dissent is The Greates Good For All Mankind?

    In short: why would the powerful need to exert huge, costly effort to impose Orwell’s Big Brother party discipline when they can more efficiently use TV programming to achieve and rule Huxley’s Brave New World? – and at the same time, all the time, continue to squeeze profit ftom the increasingly impoverished, disempowered programmed masses?

    The most insidious and effective of TV programming’s Huxleyan conditioning messages? Simple: There are no enemies, there are only friends to be made. There’s your “war on noticing.” It has been prosecuted since the dawn of television.

  74. “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

    Karl Marx
    The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

  75. @josh
    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    This has been going on for some time, hasn’t it? Well before yoga pants there were leggings which go back 25 years or so. Like yoga pants, leggings allowed a woman to fairly explicitly display her legs an derriere even in winter months. Personally, I’m not complaining.

  76. @Twinkie

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it’s one of our own who could seize the moment.
     
    I know this sounds odd, but I fear someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear.

    Enemies I am comfortable with - I know where to aim the rifle. Someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear, on the other hand, is liable to stab me in the back just when I need him the most. So I tend to watch the leaders of my team carefully and, at all times, keep them honest... which is a conservative trait - understanding the fallibility of Man, and guarding against it at all times.

    Besides, I already believe in one Savior; I don't have a room for a second.

    I know this sounds odd, but I fear someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear.

    Enemies I am comfortable with – I know where to aim the rifle. Someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear, on the other hand, is liable to stab me in the back just when I need him the most. So I tend to watch the leaders of my team carefully and, at all times, keep them honest… which is a conservative trait – understanding the fallibility of Man, and guarding against it at all times.

    Besides, I already believe in one Savior; I don’t have a room for a second.

    The best constraint on a leader is a solid ideological and legal framework. We Americans may have been lucky on the first go round to get General Washington as our very first Big Man, but we also made sure that there were strong checks on power and a republican philosophy while retaining English common law (and in fact using that ancient law to bolster the case for liberty and self-determination).

    The problem with a Stalin, Hitler and Mao is that there was no legal or philosophical precedent or constitution (with any teeth) to restrain them. Gen. Franco, on the other hand, was very much a leader of the old Catholic tradition, so he was pretty reasonable as fascists go. And I suspect the church had some influence on Fidel Castro as well. Those who totally severed their politics from tradition were the most horrible of all.

    When there are big changes, there are Big Men. The two go hand in hand. I’m no fan of authoritarianism, so if we’re going to have one let’s find ourselves another Washington. The best way to accomplish that is to set out the philosophy and restraints on power in advance, and let the big man grow into them.

  77. @The Z Blog
    My read on Dohrn is she never stopped being the little Jewish girl trying to get her father's attention. Her contemporaries at the time all report that she was mostly interested in bagging the high status males, drawing attention to herself and getting a rise out of middle-class burghers like her old man.

    Collier and Horowitz both describe Ayers and a dork who used radical politics to get women. He was one of those guys who conveniently went missing when things got too serious, but he was front in center when it was time to take credit.

    Radical politics of the New Left has always had that whiff of a middle-class tantrum to it. You see that with Obama. He is by far the most petulant politician in my lifetime. The guy should have a pacifier around his neck. He has a vague idea of what he wants, but is mostly focused on his being vexed by not getting it.

    My own view is this Great Progressive Awakening is reaching its denouement: http://tinyurl.com/nbkjfuw

    I recently watched “The Baader Meinhof Complex” and “The Weather Underground” on Netflix and Amazon . The contrasts between the two groups were interesting with the Americans appearing to be puerile asses and the Germans as dangerous doctrinaire juvenile delinquents . But both groups complete assholes to a man (or woman) . Interestingly Mark Rudd said it was difficult for him to talk about that time because he was ashamed of his actions . While Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant . One thing they all had in common both German and American was that NONE of them had ever done an honest days work in their lives .

    • Replies: @Tex
    The Germans were quite dangerous. The Weathermen were mostly only a danger to themselves, being rather careless in handling explosives. The Baader-Meinhof Gang and their derivatives were pretty adept at planting bombs (and prolific, I visited Germany for two days in the mid-70s and got stuck at the airport while they defused a bomb, apparently it was just another day at the office in the Bundesrepublik) and fairly ruthless in gunning down their targets. I suppose you can chalk it up to German efficiency & ruthlessness.
  78. @Jack D
    Not just the '50s and the '60s. When I was at Wharton in the mid '70s, they brought someone from Larry Klein's shop in to guest lecture my Econ class (Klein was the Nobel Prize winning father of econometric forecasting - he had also belonged to the Communist Party in the '40s). This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP. Nothing ideological about this, it was a simple mathematical fact.

    It apparently never occurred to these guys that the Soviets were issuing phony statistics or that their growth could not continue in a linear fashion. But it was in their own professional interest that the US switch to a planned economy. In a free market economy, econometricians are like weather forecasters (and usually not very good ones). In a planned economy, they are like God - they MAKE the weather.

    It's also worth noting that in the '70s, the per capita GNP of North Korea was still higher than South Korea's (even allowing for phoniness in the N. Korean stats). Communism really was capable of producing industrial goods, up to a certain point. Yes, they used unethical means such as forced labor and theft of Western intellectual property and physical assets, but there was a time when they were actually able to make stuff (a lot of it military goods, but never mind). But at some point the "contradictions" caught up with them and it all fell apart.

    “This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP.”

    It is still going on. It is irresistible to draw a line between a few data points and find a inescapable trend. The same happened with Japan vs US. Their industrial policy .. quasi planned economy was going to crush the US. I specifically remember the moaning and groaning about how they were allowing them to take over the vital dram business. They won big … and the rest is history. I am particularly annoyed that ‘quality’ and industrial policy were destroying American industry. When the major factors were a devalued Yen and low cost of capital.

    It is still going on with China. Extrapolate their growth rate and they will be a Switzerland of 1.5 billion people. Having gone decades since any capital investment, any and everything was a huge success. Now they have ghost cities. The more developed an economy, the more difficult it is to efficiently allocate capital.

  79. @josh
    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    No civil society should condone women (or men) wearing clothing which effectively displays their genitalia. Heck, it’s not just uncivilized, it’s … animalistic?

    • Replies: @Stealth
    I was watching a documentary about about an Amazonian Indian village. As the show progressed, it was revealed that the (always nude) women of the tribe would sit down with one leg folded in order to hide their private parts with one of their feet.

    Modesty must be ingrained in us genetically to some degree.

  80. Very interesting post and comments. I believe that Steve has written elsewhere that the “progressive movement” is nothing more than a way for a rival tribe of potential “ups” to rile up the “downs,” and thereby replace the present-day “ups” in power and prerogative.

    It’s also true that there’s just something inhuman about the progressive agenda–especially as it has developed these past few years. Right now its members have confidence that they can coerce people and individuals to do their bidding. But there are reasons rooted in evolution why anything antagonistic to heterosexuality will be viewed with revulsion by the vast majority of people; and so the current mania on the left for bizarre sexual deviancies is not going to have an enduring place in human affairs. At least, that’s the thought that lets me sleep at night.

    Likewise it’s unlikely that human nature is going to switch allegiance from the strong-man model of leadership to a model based on the likes of Ezra Klein.

    But the problem is that it took about a thousand years of Western civ (and especially Anglo-Saxon civ) to “tame” the strong man model, ally it with rational and civilization-engendering virtues, turn it into something like “chivalry,” “noblesse oblige,” or “gentlemanliness.” THAT’s what the leftist project has destroyed. And in so doing, when the strong-man model reasserts itself, as it inevitably will, it will be more in the brutal despotic mold of Mao than in the refined “George-Washingtonian” model.

  81. @Jack D
    Not just the '50s and the '60s. When I was at Wharton in the mid '70s, they brought someone from Larry Klein's shop in to guest lecture my Econ class (Klein was the Nobel Prize winning father of econometric forecasting - he had also belonged to the Communist Party in the '40s). This fellow brought out charts showing that the GNP of the Soviet Union was somewhat lower than the US at that time but it was growing at A% annually and that the US growth rate was B% (a number less than A), so that it was completely inevitable that due to their planned economy which deployed resources more efficiently and could produce a higher growth rate, in ten years or so the lines would cross and the Soviet GNP would pass the US GNP. Nothing ideological about this, it was a simple mathematical fact.

    It apparently never occurred to these guys that the Soviets were issuing phony statistics or that their growth could not continue in a linear fashion. But it was in their own professional interest that the US switch to a planned economy. In a free market economy, econometricians are like weather forecasters (and usually not very good ones). In a planned economy, they are like God - they MAKE the weather.

    It's also worth noting that in the '70s, the per capita GNP of North Korea was still higher than South Korea's (even allowing for phoniness in the N. Korean stats). Communism really was capable of producing industrial goods, up to a certain point. Yes, they used unethical means such as forced labor and theft of Western intellectual property and physical assets, but there was a time when they were actually able to make stuff (a lot of it military goods, but never mind). But at some point the "contradictions" caught up with them and it all fell apart.

    Yet people like Robert Heinlein, after visiting the Soviet Union in 1960, instinctively knew that Moscow’s infrastructure couldn’t support its stated population, which was confirmed by a Naval officer buddy after he came home.

    As the chapter in his book about it says, Pravda means Truth.

  82. @donut
    I recently watched "The Baader Meinhof Complex" and "The Weather Underground" on Netflix and Amazon . The contrasts between the two groups were interesting with the Americans appearing to be puerile asses and the Germans as dangerous doctrinaire juvenile delinquents . But both groups complete assholes to a man (or woman) . Interestingly Mark Rudd said it was difficult for him to talk about that time because he was ashamed of his actions . While Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant . One thing they all had in common both German and American was that NONE of them had ever done an honest days work in their lives .

    The Germans were quite dangerous. The Weathermen were mostly only a danger to themselves, being rather careless in handling explosives. The Baader-Meinhof Gang and their derivatives were pretty adept at planting bombs (and prolific, I visited Germany for two days in the mid-70s and got stuck at the airport while they defused a bomb, apparently it was just another day at the office in the Bundesrepublik) and fairly ruthless in gunning down their targets. I suppose you can chalk it up to German efficiency & ruthlessness.

  83. Most of the worst excesses come from ultra selective elite universities. The kids that go to these institutions will not let any ideology get in the way of their self interest. If anyone can take care of themselves, these kids can.

    How much handwringing over white privilege is going on at Arizona State University or Florida State? Jameis Winston is innocent until proven guilty. In the real world, people care a lot more about college football than political correctness. Duke Lacrosse? who cares? Maybe at Johns Hopkins, the lacrosse guy gets the benefit of the doubt.

    I prefer the term, ‘White Brand’. White is the Lexus of race. The chattering classes of the world may hate the US. The rest of the world wants to BE the US. And even in America, immigrants aspire to whiteness. Cultural whiteness. Or wtf.. white white if they can pull it off.

    Real America is where people just want to live the white life … a decent job and a suburban residence with decent schools — where decent in America is luxury anywhere else in the world.

    The fundamentalist Islamists are terrified of America. How can bowing down to Allah compare to sex, drugs, and rock and roll?

    In the real America, no one gives a fuck about political correctness.

  84. “Someone once said that there will never be an ultimate winner in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. Bitter lesbian types really would like to destroy white men (not only fits their political ideology but cuts the dating competition) but most heterosexual women understand on some level that it is not in their interest.”

    Speaking of Lesbians, Lesbo Sally Kohn recently wrote an article saying that she hopes her daughter ends up being a Lesbian just like her. She would be disappointed if her daughter ends up being attracted to boys.

    • Replies: @Perspective
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964063/Gay-mom-says-gay-want-daughter-gay-too.html

    That interview with her is an eye opener. She is someone so blinded by her constant moral outrage at white cisgendered men she cannot see her own hypocrisy.
  85. “Muslims and liberals are natural enemies whereas in some way Muslims and conservatives are natural allies.”

    Muslims and Western Conservatives are not natural allies, especially not Muslims and Christian Conservatives. Tell your Muslims brothers and sisters to stop murdering Christians in countries like Syria, Nigeria, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, etc.

    If Muslim and Liberals are natural allies, the Liberal elites would be fighting hard to end massive Muslim immigration into European and North American countries.

    The truth is Liberals hate Christians a lot more than they hate Muslims. Liberals see Muslims as the lesser of 2 evils when compared to Christians. That is why Liberals often mock Christians as crazy religious nuts that believe in a stupid crazy outdated primitive book called the Bible, but praise the Quran and Islam as a vibrantly diverse religion of peace who’s presence will strengthen North American and European societies. Since DIEversity is our strength and Islam is a DIEverse religion, that means Islam is our strength.

    If you notice that Islam is not a religion of peace, Liberals will label you an Islamophobe.

  86. @blah blah blah
    I'm with Bill D / SFG, I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent.

    “I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent.”

    Big business is a friend of whoever has the power. Big business has zero morality. They’re not immoral, just moral. If the Left has the power they will grovel to the Left. If there’s money to be made by getting into bed with Big Government they will go for it. Big business has abandoned the Right because the Right is powerless. Big business has become an ally of our greatest enemy, not from conviction but from self-interest. As long as the mainstream Right (the Republicans in the US, the Tories in Britain) remains cowardly and weak Big Business will be an enemy of the Right. From the point of view of Big Business what is the point of supporting the mainstream political Right when it is treacherous, weak and cowardly and can offer them nothing?

    The answer is not to declare war against Big Business. The answer is to make the Right powerful again. When that happens they will dump the Left.

    There is a real problem though when Big Business becomes transnational. It then has no loyalties whatsoever to anything but itself. Half a century ago it was generally true that what was good for business was good for the nation. That is no longer true. That is the weakness of globalism – it creates immensely powerful corporations whose interests do not coincide with those of the nation. Capitalism is terrific when it’s national. It’s not so terrific when it’s transnational.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Yup. It's cheaper to ship jobs overseas, so they do. What is good for General Motors is no longer good for America.

    At the very least I think one thing you could make common cause with the Left on is campaign finance reform--money in politics is one of the chief ways AIPAC does its dirty work, after all. Similarly, if both parties were more receptive to their voters rather than their contributors, you'd see a lot fewer attempts to stab the country in the back on immigration, for example.
  87. @dfordoom
    "I really wish the right would organize more against Big Biz, which is not a friend of the right and in many ways is an opponent."

    Big business is a friend of whoever has the power. Big business has zero morality. They're not immoral, just moral. If the Left has the power they will grovel to the Left. If there's money to be made by getting into bed with Big Government they will go for it. Big business has abandoned the Right because the Right is powerless. Big business has become an ally of our greatest enemy, not from conviction but from self-interest. As long as the mainstream Right (the Republicans in the US, the Tories in Britain) remains cowardly and weak Big Business will be an enemy of the Right. From the point of view of Big Business what is the point of supporting the mainstream political Right when it is treacherous, weak and cowardly and can offer them nothing?

    The answer is not to declare war against Big Business. The answer is to make the Right powerful again. When that happens they will dump the Left.

    There is a real problem though when Big Business becomes transnational. It then has no loyalties whatsoever to anything but itself. Half a century ago it was generally true that what was good for business was good for the nation. That is no longer true. That is the weakness of globalism - it creates immensely powerful corporations whose interests do not coincide with those of the nation. Capitalism is terrific when it's national. It's not so terrific when it's transnational.

    Yup. It’s cheaper to ship jobs overseas, so they do. What is good for General Motors is no longer good for America.

    At the very least I think one thing you could make common cause with the Left on is campaign finance reform–money in politics is one of the chief ways AIPAC does its dirty work, after all. Similarly, if both parties were more receptive to their voters rather than their contributors, you’d see a lot fewer attempts to stab the country in the back on immigration, for example.

    • Replies: @Forbes

    It’s cheaper to ship jobs overseas, so they do
     
    .

    Yup. Keep believing that.

    Jobs go where the markets are. The US is a replacement parts market. Foreign markets are new product growth markets. Developing countries have created a middle class market that twice the size of the US market. Now it's not US wealth/income middle class--the US is a very mature market.

    GM builds more cars in China than they do in the US. What are they supposed to do, ignore that market? Why is GM to be constrained by what someone thinks is "good for America"? What's the definition of "good for America"? Is there a Wiki page you can link to?

    Where have you been for the last 40 years? Asleep?
  88. @josh
    No sane society has women walking around in skin tight pants in public.

    “Nothing gets between me and my Calvin’s”–starting in 1980, the year Brooke Shields turned 15. No woman, still a girl. That’s 35 years ago. You’ve some catching up to do.

  89. @anon
    The problem is Obama is too limited and lazy to do the job. He has horribly disappointed the swpl class. He will be obsolete the minute he is is not potus.

    Obama will be obsolete the minute he is not potus.

    Not likely. The media love, love, love him. Obama demonstrates so little self-awareness, is so infatuated with his own brilliance, the media will seek him out at every opportunity, and Obama will speak out, talk, and lecture on any topic–like Pavlov’s dog. Eyeballs. Ratings. Buzz.

    Who’s gonna be the media’s go-to guy? He becomes the Democrat Party Senior Statesman on everything. As an incompetent lame duck, Obama still gets high-40s approval ratings.

    And the “clean and articulate” Obama will immediately occupy the role as the go-to black guy. Jackson’s been superseded by Sharpton, and media-challenged Sharpton returns to the rabble-rouser role.

    W did the same thing his father did, went away. They has enough respect for the presidency (and self-respect) to not want to be part of the national conversation. Obama is the opposite animal.

  90. @SFG
    Yup. It's cheaper to ship jobs overseas, so they do. What is good for General Motors is no longer good for America.

    At the very least I think one thing you could make common cause with the Left on is campaign finance reform--money in politics is one of the chief ways AIPAC does its dirty work, after all. Similarly, if both parties were more receptive to their voters rather than their contributors, you'd see a lot fewer attempts to stab the country in the back on immigration, for example.

    It’s cheaper to ship jobs overseas, so they do

    .

    Yup. Keep believing that.

    Jobs go where the markets are. The US is a replacement parts market. Foreign markets are new product growth markets. Developing countries have created a middle class market that twice the size of the US market. Now it’s not US wealth/income middle class–the US is a very mature market.

    GM builds more cars in China than they do in the US. What are they supposed to do, ignore that market? Why is GM to be constrained by what someone thinks is “good for America”? What’s the definition of “good for America”? Is there a Wiki page you can link to?

    Where have you been for the last 40 years? Asleep?

  91. @Jefferson
    "Someone once said that there will never be an ultimate winner in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. Bitter lesbian types really would like to destroy white men (not only fits their political ideology but cuts the dating competition) but most heterosexual women understand on some level that it is not in their interest."

    Speaking of Lesbians, Lesbo Sally Kohn recently wrote an article saying that she hopes her daughter ends up being a Lesbian just like her. She would be disappointed if her daughter ends up being attracted to boys.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964063/Gay-mom-says-gay-want-daughter-gay-too.html

    That interview with her is an eye opener. She is someone so blinded by her constant moral outrage at white cisgendered men she cannot see her own hypocrisy.

  92. @dfordoom
    "Muslims and American (Christian) conservatives have some common grounds in that they are both traditional in post-modern times, but traditionalism is not the only element that defines these two groups of people."

    Perfectly true. The point is that like it or not most western countries already have sizeable Muslim minorities and there's no way of getting rid of them. And even if we could stop immigration tomorrow those Muslim minorities will continue to grow. They're a reality that we may not like, but they're a reality just the same. Having them as allies, even if it's a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies. And it might be very much preferable to having them as enemies aligned with the Left. It might also be a very useful way to split the Left and to expose the hypocrisy of their support for multi-culturalism.

    And realistically, how any potential allies do we have? As conservatives we're a very small and fairly powerless minority (I don't count neocons or libertarians as conservatives because I don't see anything remotely conservative in their positions). Even an uncomfortable potential ally might be one that we can't afford to dismiss out of hand unless we're resigned to the prospect of becoming more and more marginalised and more and more irrelevant which is where we're heading.

    ” Having them as allies, even if it’s a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies.”

    Muslims have already declared that all Christians on the planet are their enemies. So your Christian-Muslim alliance scenario is just fantasy land talk.

    Tell your Muslim brothers and sisters to stop murdering Christians and stop raping Christian women and stop committing terrorist attacks on countries founded by White European Christians and than we will talk about a Christian-Muslim alliance.

    Until than, make like a tree and leave. Take your B.S proposed alliance and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  93. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    No civil society should condone women (or men) wearing clothing which effectively displays their genitalia. Heck, it's not just uncivilized, it's ... animalistic?

    I was watching a documentary about about an Amazonian Indian village. As the show progressed, it was revealed that the (always nude) women of the tribe would sit down with one leg folded in order to hide their private parts with one of their feet.

    Modesty must be ingrained in us genetically to some degree.

  94. Eugen Herrigel was a member of the N… Partei, which may not be incompatible with Zen’s amorality.

    They’re a reality that we may not like, but they’re a reality just the same. Having them as allies, even if it’s a very uncomfortable alliance, might be preferable to having them as enemies.

    That is bullshit. You sound like a neo-Vichy character in that *Submission* novel Steve was talking about a couple weeks ago.

    I believe that Steve has written elsewhere that the “progressive movement” is nothing more than a way for a rival tribe of potential “ups” to rile up the “downs,” and thereby replace the present-day “ups” in power and prerogative.

    Pareto’s circulation of the elites.

    And in so doing, when the strong-man model reasserts itself, as it inevitably will, it will be more in the brutal despotic mold of Mao than in the refined “George-Washingtonian” model.

    Or in a neo-Confederate form. The Confederates had no Great Man political leader.

  95. Maoist “struggle sessions” have always struck me as an excellent lens through which to analyze the whole SJW-mob craziness that has become endemic on the Internet. But like a lot of folks, I tend to assume the phenomenon must be self-limiting, at least in its current form of extreme hostility towards heterosexual males.

    Aside from Joan of Arc and Margaret Thatcher, I can’t think of a single successful mass movement or uprising that hasn’t been led by a charismatic heterosexual male. (I exclude women who gained power through dynastic succession; they are a special case.) It’s true that in some cases — Hitler, Lenin — the “sexuality” might be highly attenuated, and in others, a robust sex drive might shade over into bisexuality, but I imagine a plausible aura of conventional masculine heterosexuality is still essential for any world-changing leader.

    As long as the Left remains hostile to that, I am not going to be worried about the knock in the night.

    Sort of related: Can you imagine a guy like Bill Clinton, if he were a young man coming up today, wanting to have anything to do with the Democratic Party? I’ve sometimes wondered if the anti-male hysteria currently gripping the Left is damaging them in the long run by driving away a lot of potential talent…

  96. @Jack D
    What is he going to do? Abrogate the Constitution? Foment a coup? You must be drinking some of your namesake beverage. There is zero support for Obama staying on even among rabid Leftists. No one has even floated a trial balloon about amending the Constitution or having him run as VP or some other ploy. Anyway, it's Hillary's turn.


    The US has a strong Constitutional system. Occasionally, someone (Roosevelt) will infect the system but even he was not strong enough to kill it and at some point the system's immune response pushed back (rejection of the Court packing scheme, passage of the 22nd Amendment). Obama has also tried some extra-Constitutional ploys (immigration) but they won't last either.

    Not so sure about that he will have effective control of 12% of the population and they’ll support him passionately. Obama can cause a lot of damage going forward but ironically mostly in Dem circles. I read a report about Chicago’s mayoral election they interviewed black people that admitted to voting for Rahm simply based on Obama’s endorsement.

    Hillary is going to have a tough time of it. Can she get whites back into the tent without offending Obama? I love how the media is making Rudy’s comments out to be an issue for the GOP. Obama is a millstone on the Dems not the GOP.

  97. • Replies: @donut
    A Bourgeoisie version of the "cultural revolution".
  98. Can you imagine a guy like Bill Clinton, if he were a young man coming up today, wanting to have anything to do with the Democratic Party?

    Despite the Republicans having the lookers Bill always had a weakness for non-lookers so I would guess he would still be a Dem. Besides the Duke hoax, Twana Brawley, UVA and other cases showed that as Teddy was not that type he would never be subject to anti-male hysteria.

  99. @Sunbeam
    Does Liberalism have any real hold in non-European derived countries?

    I'm not talking about lip service, I'm talking about going out of your way to live the ideal (though you could make an arguments that liberals in the aforementioned countries want other people to walk the walk for them).

    It just doesn't seem very Chinese. Or even very much an appealing idealism south of the Rio Grande, except for the usual Euro derived folks down that way. Let alone Africa or the 'Stans.

    Wasn't it Kaplan who published that "Democracy was it just a moment" article? I think you could add liberalism to that. And well American conservatism, because there sure doesn't seem to be that much culturally conservative about it (and when culturally conservative elements emerge in it, they get stomped).

    The West (referring to the Euro derived folks) had a good run, a lot of success. And most importantly made a lot of money.

    So what happens if equally or more successful competitors emerge?

    Just don't think you are going to be able to sell it anymore.

    And as a consequence of this, I just have to wonder what is going through the heads of our elites.

    Can't they see the trends? That things are aligning against them continuing to have the status, influence, and wealth they are used to? That their efforts are destroying the base camp their position is based on? It's already started in a lot of ways; we have very little ability to use our very expensive military against places where real opponents draw the line, and have the logistics to support it.

    In the coming more fiscally constrained budget era that is going to have to emerge one day, they are going to have trouble doing it against the easier opponents.

    I just can't see our lot being allowed to operate in China or other places the way they have here. Not to mention there is no shortage of people with the ability and the hunger to take their place on the totem pole in those places. What's Jim Rogers going to do if someone with some pull in China rips him off big time, and the US isn't interested in intervening in some way?

    Self defeating. But what do I know? I haven't made a ton of money selling yoga pants.

    When I was in business school the high caste Indian students were the best at aping the diversity lingo, but the lower caste folks called BS on it all the time, especially regarding skin color as a barrier. We had one amazing ‘struggle session’ in orientation… altruistic whites were standing up and offering thoughtful solutions to conflict and getting pummeled by the facilitators for their unspoken privileges, white horse messianism, etc. and this really dark, burly, lower caste Indian stood up and called bullshit on the whole thing. It was amazing. Derailed it completely… Oh no, I forgot, it just marched on and ignored him

  100. “What they try to do is to not have a single patriarchal Big Brother, just have an Emmanuel Goldstein hate symbol to unify around by hating cisgender straight white gentile males. But of course, humans are more inclined to want to follow a big, healthy, masculine, brave, straight guy like Mao than various representatives of the fringes. So a Mitt Romney-type doesn’t make a good Emmanuel Goldstein for two minutes hates because a Mitt-type would naturally make a better Big Brother.”

    I have a little different take.

    There are two kinds of identity: a positive (Big Brother) type of identity; and a negative (Emanuel Goldstein) type of identity. Though I lack to sociological sophistication to argue for which is stronger, negative identities can be incredibly strong, though my guess is they aren’t as healthy as the positive ones.

    Take a look at Jews. Jews are probably the most ethnocentric group on the planet, and much, though certainly not all, of Judaism is a negative, us-versus-them, phenomenon. Jews indeed see themselves as a people who shall dwell alone. And negative identity is even more strongly pronounced in secular Jews, for whom the holocaust has become a sick, morbid religion of how evil the “other” is, with absolutely nothing in the way of positive identity save a victim status. Negative identities are plenty strong by themselves, even if profoundly unhealthy. I am referring to what liberals call “fear”.

    I would suspect though that a positive identity is much healthier, if not nearly as strong. A good example is the traditional American foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and not looking for “dragons to slay”. Christianity also generally provides for a strong positive identity.

    Finally, I see another phenomenon at work here that has Jungian implications. The Deformed Church of Political Correctness is that which must not be questioned or spoken of–a war on “noticing” as Sailer aptly puts it. In this sense, it is like the old Judaic concept of YHWH–that which must never be uttered or spoken of. The ever elusive Mosaic Tabernacle is yet another example. Five thousand years of Judaism have proven the hold that taboos of mystery can have on the human psyche. Of course, it is atavistic, and there is nothing “progressive” about it. But then, there is nothing “progressive” about postmodern liberalism either. It is an ideology that will put us back into the dark ages if we allow it to.

  101. @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    Struggle Session at Georgetown

    http://www.thehoya.com/cartoon-sparks-ire-dialogue/

    A Bourgeoisie version of the “cultural revolution”.

  102. @Neutral
    Another thing that many Westerners don't get about why Mao is so popular to this day is that he unified China. Chinese history is one dynasty following another, sometimes when a dynasty crumbled it split China into smaller parts. The call this "splitism" and it is a very big deal in Chinese history, this is more of a disaster than losing a few millions in famines or wars. Mao was not just about some personality cult, it goes to the core of Chinese civilization and values.

    Just like Americans who behave like blundering oafs with regards to the Russia/Ukraine history, one day there will be a McCain like idiot who wants to grant Taiwan full independence. The Chinese will treat this beyond what even Lincoln did with regards to independence from the US, they will view this a threat to their civilization. I pray to never see the day when this happens, because things will get nuclear very fast.

    Right Neutral, the bloody century of civil war, famine, and mass death over the century prior to the Chinese Communist takeover had everything to do with the inability to unify the country, prevent civil conflict and resist foreign invaders. A couple of million extra dead was a price they were willing to pay to end that. And the ChiComs unification of the country, bloody as it was, set the stage for the success the Chinese have today.

    A little funny to compare your the diversity preacher at the local U to the world-historic tyrant forged in that crucible…

  103. It’s also worth noting that in the ’70s, the per capita GNP of North Korea was still higher than South Korea’s (even allowing for phoniness in the N. Korean stats). Communism really was capable of producing industrial goods, up to a certain point. Yes, they used unethical means such as forced labor and theft of Western intellectual property and physical assets, but there was a time when they were actually able to make stuff (a lot of it military goods, but never mind). But at some point the “contradictions” caught up with them and it all fell apart.

    Russia eventually outproduced Germany during WWII — and toward the end of the war were producing better quality tanks and weapons. Still an amazing thing to think about.

    When it came to underdeveloped countries playing catch-up with mid-20th century industrialization Communism delivered the goods, although at great cost. But the command and control system wasn’t flexible enough to move beyond that.

  104. […]   The future of politically correct struggle sessions. […]

  105. @Bill P

    It would take somebody pretty brilliant to adapt est struggle session techniques to enforcing political correctness by igniting Maoist passions among Americans, but I suspect somebody at some point will figure it out.
     
    Somebody on the other side will figure it out first. Big men thrive on revolution -- not the status quo. Mao's cultural revolution was a political maneuver in which he reignited revolution to put himself back on top after technocrats had politely shoved him aside.

    Our politically correct classes are inherently paranoid about any man who might have populist appeal. They are dyed-in-the-wool anti-populists and effete by nature. They are constitutionally incapable of creating a strongman.

    The populists have an enormous window of opportunity right now. We are at a philosophical turning point, and it's one of our own who could seize the moment.

    We should be laying the philosophical/theological groundwork -- not worrying about how the other side could contrive some new ersatz messiah.

    Who is we?? I’m not a populist!

  106. “Forbes says:

    Why is GM to be constrained by what someone thinks is “good for America”?”

    This is nothing but an argument that GM should be allowed to anything it wants – including that which nobody thinks is “good for America”. Why should GM do what is good for America? Because GM owes its existence to having been founded in America, enjoying the stability and the benefit of the rule-of-law that America afforded, and was staffed by American citizens who were trained and educated at the expence of American tax-payers.

    What’s the definition of “good for America”?

    Probably – the opposite of whatever policies you would reccommend.

  107. “donut says:

    One thing they all had in common both German and American was that NONE of them had ever done an honest days work in their lives .

    This is also true of much of our political class – from Barack Obama to Scott Walker.

  108. @Anonymous
    Ethnocentrism and nationalism aren't examples of concentric circles of loyalty. Being ethnocentric or nationalistic involves leap-frogging sub-ethnic or sub-national loyalties and withholding supra-ethnic or supra-national loyalties.

    I've never heard of anyone holding or behaving as if they hold concentric circles of loyalty.

    Pashtuns, Arabs more or less, many traditional societies overall.

    Me against everyone else.

    Me and my brother against our cousins.

    We and cousins against the rest of the clan.

    Clan against clan within tribe.

    Tribe against tribe.

    Nation [barely, and in exceptional cases]

    political ideology [ sometimes]

    Islam.

    Granted, some occasionally jump their place in the queue, but then the system is evolved to be a near-pure form of situational ethics anyway. The decisive allegiance is determined by whoever is the rival of the moment and on what level the distinction exists between oneself and him. Fluidity of these allegiances is a feature, not a bug.

  109. […] these strange and humiliating rituals as a thing of the past, but the truth is that they’ve merely changed form. As I’ve noted previously, cultural Marxism is a crappy and inherently destructive […]

  110. […] Unz Review – The Future of Politically Correct Struggle Sessions by Steve […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS