RSS
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:
Rhetorical Momentum
by Steve Sailer
March 02, 2016Last week, Hillary Clinton tweeted a line from her South Carolina primary victory speech:
“Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers. We need to show that we really are all in this together.” —Hillary in SC
Because the Democratic front-runner was clearly referring to Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, the literal interpretation would be that she was demanding the tearing down of the rather meager defenses currently dividing the United States from Latin America.
And that raises the question of who exactly are the “we” Hillary says “are all in this together.” Does Hillary’s “we” refer to Americans…or to anybody who shows up at those hateful border barriers?
Now, you might say that Hillary is an aged and cynical politician, and that whatever her speechifying, she wouldn’t actually do anything so stupid as to give encouragement to a flash mob from south of the border.
But you would have been tempted to say the same thing a year ago about the chancellor of Germany. Angela Merkel is just like Hillary, if Hillary were younger, smarter (Dr. Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry), more experienced (Merkel has been leader of her party for sixteen years and prime minister for ten), soberer, and self-made rather than running on her politically talented husband’s coattails.
Read the whole thing there.
My recent Taki’s Magazine columns have swung back and forth between elucidating general principles about how the contemporary world works (e.g., “T he Ultimate Minority Right”) and specific examples illustrating the principles. Often I’ll get started on a broad idea, but one example (e.g., Polish politics, OscarsSoWhite, or why Alexander Hamilton is more popular in Manhattan these days than Andrew Jackson) will prove so fertile it ends up being the entire column.
This is one of those general principle columns.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3783/anti-semites-are-out-force-trump-ben-shapiro
Great column. Amazing, too, how the same folks praising Merkel are using Ancient Rome analogies to claim Trump is going to be the end of our republic.
Steve, your columns of late have been flunking your aggressive assaults against aging brains. I have to think there is some notion out there that by now the ISteve anthology deserves a Volume One. (And yes I will be happy to pay for the same of his own from Mr. Unz.) Particularly that when you start thinking, as above, about how such a bound collection should be ordered first to last.
Something was lost when we forgot Bacon loosed sallies of the mind of 300 words and we started calling essayists columnists. Much much more was lost I believe when we started calling columnists bloggers. I myself am a camp follower, not only cause I can be but because to me it sounds better to be that than to be a blogger with a blog for blogging.
When great bloggers recall they are essayists, well it would seem that we should expect great essays about general principles to ensue.
France: Is There a Way Out? by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books
If he means "born in France", well ok. But why is "native American" never used to refer to people whose ancestors did not live in America in the fifteenth century?Replies: @Frau Katze
Anytime I see people talking about these things “we” need to do, I get the urge to ask – what do you mean “we”, paleface?
Brilliant. Someone should say this to her face, and post the aftermath video online.
this is an extremely good column. This mechanism of the mainstream getting more and more extreme is similar to the cultural changes within specific art disciplines, where each generation tries to somehow be better than the generation before, described by Bourdieu. It is also similar to the situation Stephen Jay Gould saw responsible for the complexity of life: if it is impossible to move over a barrier on one side but you move anyway you will turn out further out points at the other side over the time.
I took it as more like "mapped to new terrain." In the service of distinguishing oneself, one's movement, one's society, whatever, from others. You know, that thing about differance as ding an sich. The coining of new forms of symbolic capital, and the power regimes created around those.
(Sorry for the sentence fragments, but I can't seem to write about that post-post-post-modern stuff otherwise. It seems to beg for incomplete ideas.)
On an ancient Roman analogy – the Gracchi – maybe your republic will be the end of Trump.
“One reason is rhetorical momentum. As the decades go by, respectable concepts become ever more extremist as the establishment succeeds in demonizing dissent. Ideas that were reasonable in moderation become unquestionable dogma. Without a culture of open debate, the politicians get stupider.”
What are these “respectable concepts”? Is it immigration reform, or white genocide? Is it limited government, or neo-reactionary politics? Is it free market, or crony capitalism? Depends exclusively on how the media and bloggers for the Coalition of the Right Fringes or the Coalition of the Left Fringes shapes it for public consumption.
“Politicians rely on the media for their ideas, so political correctness leads to policy incompetence.”
It’s not political correctness, it’s political hackery. For every Democrat who espouses “Black Lives Matters”, there is R-K selection theory as espoused by Anonymous Conservative and his toadies. For every conservative who touts Roosh’s Neomasculinity, there is an SJW demanding an end to “white privilege”. Perhaps the fine bloggers here should look in their own backyard to see who is invading their safe spaces and seeking refuge under the guise of “conservative” or “liberal” principles.
“Amazing, too, how the same folks praising Merkel are using Ancient Rome analogies to claim Trump is going to be the end of our republic.”
Amazing, too, how the same folks praising Trump are using the “barbarians at the gates” rhetoric to claim that liberals and “cuckservatives” are facilitating the demise of America within the next twenty years. Looking forward toward the racial civil wars and the ultimate “reboot”.
maybe related to the concept of marginal utility, and something I was reminded when reading about opinions how more is better in immigration …
Gregory Bateson said that every schoolboy should know that
“THERE ARE NO MONOTONE “VALUES” IN BIOLOGY
A monotone value is one that either only increases or only decreases. Its curves has no kinks; that is, its curve never changes from increase to decrease or vice versa. Desired substances, things, patterns, or sequences of experience that are in some sense “good” for the organism – items of diet, conditions of life, temperature, entertainment, sex, and so forth – are never such that more of the something is always better than less of the something. Rather, for all objects and experiences, there is a quantity that has optimum value. Above that quantity, the variable becomes toxic. To fall below that value is to be deprived.
This characteristic of biological value does not hold for money. Money is always transitively valued. More money is supposedly always better than less money. Fore example, $1001 is to be preferred to $1000. But this is not so for biological values. More calcium is not always better than less calcium. There is an optimum quantity of calcium that a given organism may need in its diet. Beyond this, calcium becomes toxic. Similarly, for oxygen that we breathe or food or components of diet and probably all components of relationship, enough is better than a feast. We can even have too much psychotherapy. A relationship with no combat in it is dull, and a relationship with too much combat in it is toxic. What is desirable is a relationship with a certain optimum of conflict. It is even possible that when we consider money, not by itself, but as acting on human beings who own it, we may find that money, too, becomes toxic beyond a certain point. In any case, the philosophy of money, the set of presuppositions by which money is supposedly better and better the more you have of it, is totally antibiological. It seems, nevertheless, that this philosophy can be taught to living things.”
http://www.oikos.org/m&nschoolboy.htm
I think for some strata of society or people there is a realization of this and a dulling of attraction maybe as a selected result, e.g. for excess IQ or wealth. There are those women who know on an instinctual level that a life in the elite is not for them.
The use of the pronoun “we” – usually to shame people – is really beginning to get under my skin.
It’s hard to argue with the general principles here.
But, to put Galileo the other way about: still, still, it does not move.
Shakespeare, closet iSteve fan.
New Yorker Alexander Hamilton no doubt has always been more popular in Manhattan than has southerner Andrew Jackson.
I often wonder why the precautionary principle is not invoked in relation to immigration, when it’s apparently become something of a universal principle in European affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#European_Commission
“Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk of harm.”
I guess your article answers that: since a little immigration was ok, more can’t be harmful. Or something.
Ah, anyway I always thought the precautionary principle sounded bogus, a fancy term that doesn’t mean much.
The cautionary principle is routinely invoked when discussing "climate change" by most of the same people who throw caution to the winds when it comes to immigration.
If only! Empires need “imperatores”. Trump the Magnificent.
Steve, do you expect Hillary to pull a Merkel if she reaches the White House? Is she jealous of Merkel’s valkyrie call to her Merkeljugend brownshirts?
I sincerely hope she says the phrase “it takes a village” during a debate…
Why are you pretending that there is some GOP establishment that is legitimately opposed to the core values of the Democratic Party? The smear campaign is not bizzare at all. It’s what was to be expected.
Still? THere must be partial translations, abbreviations, and summaries floating around in addition to automated translation. Can you recommend a bootleg translation?
The code of conduct in a society, which is not laid down by law, varies over time.
This is not a good translation as we already know society is not laid down by law…
Society’s code of conduct, which is not…
Improved already.
Really? Nobody is translating this? Even the interesting, juicy bits? Anyone?
That’s quite interesting. I’m going to have to think more about whether Aristotle’s moderation is really related to marginal utility. Is that an original idea, or do you have links to people who have fleshed it out more?
When I read sh-t like this, it makes me so pissed off that there are people with Cadillac SUVs who think this. People without a lot of money are obviously people who should be excluded. Who are these idiots?
Oh really? ‘Cause I thought the whole Julia Child thing (not that that was a 71-81 phenom) was brought on by an American. Likewise, there’s that kitchen-ware store that originated in CA that I can’t remember the name of that was started by an American.
I think that this whole restaurant thing is something about which people are basically ignorant and are just being lazy about. My guess is that if somebody actually investigated the matter, it would turn out that the flowering of deliciousness in the US is the result of a native white interest in food crossed with increased tourism, business travel, international trade in foodstuffs, etc. This would agree with the general outline of history in which Europeans spend enormous sums to acquire new flavor profiles from the exotic East.
There is of course the issue of native taste profiles. Any perusal of old cookbooks will reveal egregious substitutions. We assume immigrants have killed these off. But I’m not sure. Is the improvement in Thai cuisine in the US (Thai food is very delicately balanced and complex) the result of more Thais moving to the US and refusing to modify their dishes for American taste, or is due to the SWPL natives backpacking in Thailand and finding out what Thai food really tastes like?
There’s another aspect here which you’ve overlooked. Going beyond marginal utility, there’s the question whether the first 56,000,000 Hispanics contributed anything. If the 56,000,001 Hispanic is the guy who opens El Huarache Aztecala ( http://www.elhuaracheaztecala.com ), he’s added a lot more than the other losers.
So immigration is not just about critical mass. I think you get the point and can take it from here…
Also, you should go to El Huarache Aztecala. I went in November, and it was fantastic.
The media plays a pretty big role in your story. Since the Interwebs didn’t kill NYTimes yet, do you have a plan?
I don’t think that’s quite right. China is bleeding billionaires and would like to keep them, and, I suspect, would like to get billionaires to immigrate if they would, but they won’t. Other countries that need an influx of wealth and/or talent are… Mongolia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar… but nobody is moving there.
I have no sense of the situation in Taiwan.
Japan sensibly discriminates based on race, education, and wealth, but many young Japanese are, due to globalized media, becoming part of the US Democratic Party base. At the same time, what Japanese call “Asians”–Filipinos, Indians, etc–are becoming good at taking advantage of the visa rules set in place to accommodate Europeans and Americans. So there are uneducated Nepalis who grew up as shepherds working here as cooks under the Engineering/Specialist in Humanities/International Services visa… a bullshit visa if there ever was one…
And Singapore is a whore who will let anybody ride as long as they pay.
The title of Sarrazin’s book – “Deutschland schafft sich ab” – has the same root verb as Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das” – We can do it.
So: “Wir schaffen das ab” – We can get rid of it.
“Anytime I see people talking about these things “we” need to do, I get the urge to ask – what do you mean “we”, paleface?”
Agreed. The assumed “we” is one of the biggest lies in politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#European_Commission
"Activities that present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk of harm."
I guess your article answers that: since a little immigration was ok, more can't be harmful. Or something.
Ah, anyway I always thought the precautionary principle sounded bogus, a fancy term that doesn't mean much.Replies: @Mr. Anon
“I often wonder why the precautionary principle is not invoked in relation to immigration, when it’s apparently become something of a universal principle in European affairs.”
The cautionary principle is routinely invoked when discussing “climate change” by most of the same people who throw caution to the winds when it comes to immigration.
Thanks for the link to Liberal, Harsh Denmark. I’m Danish-American myself, my Dad’s ancestors arrived in the 1870’s, and it had lots of interesting bits.
I’d also say, based on my experience with American pure blood Danes (i.e., older relatives) that another important consideration is how much it costs to have unproductive immigrants sitting around on welfare. They’re really cheap. My grandfather retired a millionaire, but lived in a lower middle class house, and if you met him, you’d think he was there to fix the plumbing.
If by “native Frenchmen” he means ethnic Frenchmen, I’d be surprised if there was a single imam in all of France.
If he means “born in France”, well ok. But why is “native American” never used to refer to people whose ancestors did not live in America in the fifteenth century?
The media always paints us as badly possibly, hence the double standard. The French are obliged to "celebrate diversity" because foreigners can only improve their ghastly culture.
But in North America, the word "native" can never be applied to us, no matter how many generations we've been here. We are forever evil for our ancestors coming here.
Speaking of rhetorical momentum….
OT: Trump VP: Pick Ann Coulter, and pick her right now:
https://whoresoftheinternet.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/trump-vp-ann-coulter-and-make-the-pick-right-now/
While I know virtually nothing about German politics, I feel confident in saying that a US president could not get away with such an extreme, unilateral, extralegal action as Merkel has done. Germany has changed a lot in the last 71 years but I think their inherent susceptibility to dictatorship has always remained far higher than ours.
The code of conduct in a society, which is not laid down by law, varies over time.
This is not a good translation as we already know society is not laid down by law...
Society's code of conduct, which is not...
Improved already.
Really? Nobody is translating this? Even the interesting, juicy bits? Anyone?That's quite interesting. I'm going to have to think more about whether Aristotle's moderation is really related to marginal utility. Is that an original idea, or do you have links to people who have fleshed it out more?When I read sh-t like this, it makes me so pissed off that there are people with Cadillac SUVs who think this. People without a lot of money are obviously people who should be excluded. Who are these idiots?Oh really? 'Cause I thought the whole Julia Child thing (not that that was a 71-81 phenom) was brought on by an American. Likewise, there's that kitchen-ware store that originated in CA that I can't remember the name of that was started by an American.
I think that this whole restaurant thing is something about which people are basically ignorant and are just being lazy about. My guess is that if somebody actually investigated the matter, it would turn out that the flowering of deliciousness in the US is the result of a native white interest in food crossed with increased tourism, business travel, international trade in foodstuffs, etc. This would agree with the general outline of history in which Europeans spend enormous sums to acquire new flavor profiles from the exotic East.
There is of course the issue of native taste profiles. Any perusal of old cookbooks will reveal egregious substitutions. We assume immigrants have killed these off. But I'm not sure. Is the improvement in Thai cuisine in the US (Thai food is very delicately balanced and complex) the result of more Thais moving to the US and refusing to modify their dishes for American taste, or is due to the SWPL natives backpacking in Thailand and finding out what Thai food really tastes like?There's another aspect here which you've overlooked. Going beyond marginal utility, there's the question whether the first 56,000,000 Hispanics contributed anything. If the 56,000,001 Hispanic is the guy who opens El Huarache Aztecala ( http://www.elhuaracheaztecala.com ), he's added a lot more than the other losers.
So immigration is not just about critical mass. I think you get the point and can take it from here...
Also, you should go to El Huarache Aztecala. I went in November, and it was fantastic.The media plays a pretty big role in your story. Since the Interwebs didn't kill NYTimes yet, do you have a plan?I don't think that's quite right. China is bleeding billionaires and would like to keep them, and, I suspect, would like to get billionaires to immigrate if they would, but they won't. Other countries that need an influx of wealth and/or talent are... Mongolia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar... but nobody is moving there.
I have no sense of the situation in Taiwan.
Japan sensibly discriminates based on race, education, and wealth, but many young Japanese are, due to globalized media, becoming part of the US Democratic Party base. At the same time, what Japanese call "Asians"--Filipinos, Indians, etc--are becoming good at taking advantage of the visa rules set in place to accommodate Europeans and Americans. So there are uneducated Nepalis who grew up as shepherds working here as cooks under the Engineering/Specialist in Humanities/International Services visa... a bullshit visa if there ever was one...
And Singapore is a whore who will let anybody ride as long as they pay.Replies: @AndrewR, @Intelligent Dasein
I hope she says that to so that we can see Bob Dole briefly suspend his fossilization to tell us how “it takes a family to raise a child.”
Even as a child I was disgusted by Dole’s disingenuousness. I intuitively understood even then that family and village aren’t mutually exclusive things.
Speaking of diminishing marginal utility, I think that the “Trump is a Nazi” attacks are coming too soon in the cycle and will lose their effectiveness by November. They are also so phony as to be laughable. From a USNews editorial:
“It’s true, as I pointed out, that Trump denounced Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, on Friday. And he did so again Sunday on Twitter. But his excuse for not doing so on CNN yesterday not only fails the smell test but does so in spectacular fashion. ”
So it’s not good enough for Trump to denounce David Duke 2 days out of every 3. He has to come out and denounce Emmanuel Goldstein – oops I mean David Duke EVERY DAY from now until November in order to prove his loyalty to the Inner Party. Anyone who doesn’t denounce Duke on a daily basis (FIVE times a day while facing Mecca would be even better) reveals himself to be a fascist just by this omission.
And if you don’t like this litmus test, we’ve got plenty more for you – reporters will be dangling litmus tests in front of Trump’s nose ten times a day and if he passes 99 out of 100 of them, then the one he flunks will be the opening story on the national news – “Donald Trump kicks kittens and babies!” But for Hillary it will be nothing but softballs. At some point even the dull witted low information voters will catch on to the game. At least one can hope.
OT but worth putting out there: Not only has Melissa Click been fired, but so has Melissa (most foremost ….) Harris Perry. Something about Melissas, I guess ……
Don’t know Bourdieu but Harold Bloom dominated the understanding of art history in English Departments after his 1973 book The Anxiety of Influence, which is one of those books you don’t need to read so simple is its premise and pervasive its influence over the idea-sea in which critics swim.
But anyways, I think Steve’s point has more in common, if it does, with the better book that preceded Bloom’s by two years, Hugh Kenner’s the Pound Era. That book was implicitly about artists who absorbed influence, e.g. Pound’s doctrine of Persona, Gaudier-Brzeska’s intuitions about Egypt over and under Greece, Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent. The fountain-heads of each generation absorb what of the past is most alive in their time, and then reach logical conclusions. American Culture has been absorbing cultural marxism or deconstructionism or whatever kind of anxiety-based theory you can name for some time now, a point illustrated exactly by Harold Blooms’ perceived stature in relation to Hugh Kenner, I would say.
The masses have finally heard from someone who can communicate how stupid it all has become and moreover do so in the manner of a political authority. And there is so much that fits in the fact that that communicator has been building things all the while the masses have been absorbing kinds of criticism that do not amount to art. And also much to be said about how alive the tradition Trump is stumping for has all the while been when everyone thought it was so safely defanged and suffering the wilderness.
America’s future is already here –
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/minnesota-dfl-caucus-candidates-speak-only-in-somali/
Laffer Curve.
Goldilocks Rule.
Unfortunately, Laffer fell for the housing bubble like so many others.
—————-
Is it ideology?
True, masses fall for official ideology and take it seriously. But masses believe in ideology in accordance to how it is molded by the elites. Masses don’t make or interpret their own ideology.
And elites may believe it too. But I think, with the elites it’s more about respectability and belonging to the privileged circles. So, who gets to control the rules within the inner circle? Those who control elite media and academia, the guardians and enforcers of what is correct.
But ideology is a ‘fluid’ thing. In the end, power trumps ideology.
After all, look at the changes in Soviet and Chinese Communist ideology.
Stalin departed much from Leninism though there were plenty of similarities.
The thing is Stalin had the power to make communism serve his agendas.
And guess what? Everyone went along.
So, when Stalin turned communism nationalist than internationalist, Soviets went along.
When Stalin made peace with Hitler, people went along. (Even in the West though Jewish communists bolted.)
So, communist ideology mattered less that what the Power made of it.
If ideology is so powerful and important, those weaned on hardcore communism should have rose up in anger whenever Stalin changed things. But they went along.
After Stalin died, a new kind of communism developed in USSR, and that became communism. And Gorbachev departed from Brezhnev era communism, and Glasnost became new communism.
Same in China. When Mao said communism is about individual farmers plotting own land, that was communism. When Mao pushed collectivization, that was communism. When Mao pushed commune-ization, that was communism. When Mao pushed Hundred Flowers, that was communism. When, following disaster of Great Leap, there were some market reforms, that was communism. When Mao said China and Russia were friends forever, that was communism. When Mao said China and Russia will be enemies for 1000 yrs, that was communism. When Mao said US is evil enemy, that was communism. When Deng met with Carter and opened China, that was communism.
So much ideological consistency. And people went along.
Now, look at how Liberalism changed. It used to be about Free Speech. Now, it’s about controlling ‘hate speech’, with 70% of millennials in colleges saying ‘free speech’ must be curtailed. How did Liberalism go from staunch free speech for all to control of speech? In the UK, they arrest people for twitter remarks.
Liberalism was once for the capitalist class in the 19th century. It was for the working class in the 20th century. It is now about the globo-urban haute class.
Liberalism is what the powers-that-be say it is. Of course, it is easier to persuade the young, and that is why Lib PC begins from cradle.
Millennials, in terms of musical taste and ideological leaning, are the most engineered and programmed people in Western history.
The range of musical preferences and ideological range have narrowed.
The Industry and the Institution have brave-new-worldized the new generation in terms of controlling and manipulating their ero-zones and ego-zones.
It is no accident that the generation that is into music with the narrowest range is also into ideology with narrowest range. Worship the homo!!!
Of course, ideology does matter, but all ideologies can be molded in so many ways by those with the Power. Recall NYT’s Liberalism had been against amnesty for the sake of American workers and blacks. But then, it turned pro-amnesty.
Sierra Club used to be anti-immigration for sake of environment. But once it got tons of cash from globalist, it’s been for immigration. Same principles but different positions, different interpretations.
So, any principle can be twisted in so many ways. Look at everyone from Pat Buchanan to Liberation Theology who seek to own Christianity.
Take Affirmative Action. It is about racial favoritism, but it is defended by Libs. It even covers white Hispanics.
And Jewish Libs say racial/national preference is wrong, but all Jews in both parties push for ISRAEL FIRST.
Libs used to be about colorblind society. But then, multi-culti called for Identity. But interracism calls for blending and undermining identity. Liberalism is what the powerful say it is.
Feminism went from anti-sex to pro-sex. Anything can be said to be ’empowering’.
The left made good use of Nietzsche and Heidegger.
Or consider WWII references. Some invoke WWII to argue Germany must be ‘tolerant’ and take in refugees. But one can use WWII reference to argue the opposite, i.e. since Germany imposed its crazy will during WWII, it has no business telling other European nations to follow its crazy policies.
Even the concept of ‘racism’ can be used in so many ways. It all depends on who has the power to define it. When USSR was powerful, it led the global bloc that declared Zionism as ‘racism’. But once USSR fell, nations around the world looked to US aid and dropped the idea in the UN. Most Americans see South Africa during Apartheid yrs as ‘racist’ but turn a blind eye to West Bank occupation and settlement by Zionists.
The term ‘racism’ matters less than who gets to define it and who has the privilege of using it against others. Jews, due to Holocaust Cult, get first draft pick on calling people ‘racist’. Russians don’t have that power in the EU, so it doesn’t matter what they think.
Given German war in Russia killed 20 million or more, you’d think Germans would be filled with Guilt for Russians.
But there is none because Jews have power over German Narrative. Jews have precedence, and for the time being, Jews hate Russia cuz Russia won’t put out to Jewish power. Jews will even side with Ukrainian Neo-Nazis to damage Russia. Germany is now even on the side of Ukrainian neo-Nazis against Russia because the GLOB want it that way.
But there is just Shhhhhhhhh in the media.
Ideology doesn’t think for itself. It is always molded by those with power over it.
Consider War on Terror. US entered Middle East in the name of killing terrorists… but now the war on terror has turned into US supporting ‘moderate rebels’ who are really just revamped Al Qaeda against secular Assad.
Behind every ideology there is tribalogy. Which tribe gets to call the shots on ideology.
Look at Democrats. Notice Jewish Liberalism, Muslim Liberalism, Black Liberalism, Brown Liberalism, Yellow Liberalism, Blue Collar Liberalism, feminist Liberalism, tranny Liberalism, etc all don’t see eye to eye.
Some feminists say tranny-ism is male domination. Some feminists say it is new feminism. Since the GLOB rules America and favors Tranny-ism that gets more funding and coverage, old-line feminism is losing.
Ideology is like master and dog. Some get to call the shots, some just follow.
So, when we look at any ideology, we need to ask ‘who is the master?’ and ‘who is the dog?’
This is why “please don’t call me ‘racist’” won’t work. We need take control of the term and redefine it with our agenda.
In the 60s, there was the slogan BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL. We need RACE-ISM IS TRUTH.
After all, even race-deniers are race-ist in all their life choices.
Make their actions speak louder than their words.
How were White Christians shamed? Because their critics exposed that their actions were different from their words.
Modern day Liberalism is the new myth where actions and words don’t match.
Expose that hypocrisy. Even without us, BLM is doing it plenty. We should help.
Yep.
Politicians more or less play second fiddle to the ‘media’, or more precisely a certain clique of publications, such as The Economist magazine.
The public policies and pronouncements of politician are mostly echo-chamber rehashes of previously published media editorials.
Which leads to the maxim ‘power without responsibility’. The point is that media editors can, from the safety and security of their offices, advocate any manner of crazy, ridiculous and downright stupid policies. They have no skin in the game, so to speak. If the policies prove to be catastrophic in execution, then, invariably the editors who recommended those policies with such forthrightedness and vigor, get away from the consequences absolutely scot-free.
For the politician stupid enough to take these self-styled pundits seriously, alas, the payoff can be much more drastic.
The moral is that the wise politician should take the ‘advice’ of the media as seriously as he takes the advice of his valet.
Concerning the current ‘migrant’ crisis/circus, one quote from a distinguished German author seems apposite over past German blunders in this whole mass third world/first world population replacement business…’They wanted workers, but they got human beings instead’.
Such a quote really typically sums up the Teutonic mindset and character, well at least the pre-Merkel Germany. Philosophic, concise, a little downcast perhaps, but true. Oh so true. Logic, pessimism and laser-focused exposure of the unvarnished truth, together with a certain self and political mockery.
“Melissa” means “honeybee” in Greek, as does “Deborah” in Hebrew. Fear and loathing in the apiary?
Libs say they love blacks but realize there are too many like these ‘teens’. So, they went with law-and-order Clinton who locked up tons of ‘youths’. And Libs use fancy ass homos to gentrify cities and use massive numbers of immigrants as buffers between themselves and blacks.
Wittingly or not, the immigration Law of 1965 pretty much negated the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Black got equality but then were undone by diversity. Diversity made whites hire browns and yellows in favor of blacks since immigrants were less troublesome than Negroes burning down cities, committing crime, looting, and hollering all the time. But Negroes are appeased with MLK myth. Drive out the Negroes via gentric cleansing but worship the Noble Negro. In a way, whites did the same with Indians. Drove them out… but elevated the Indian as the Noble Savage Warrior who appeared on coins, town names, memorials, etc. Remove them physically, worship them symbolically.
When immigration was greatly reduced in the 1920s, the Democrats had to look to white working class and blacks for votes. With massive rise in immigration, Democratic elite globalists can throw white working class under the bus, blacks under the bus. The elites could increasingly look to white upper middle class(the gentrifiers) and the rising tide of immigration for cash and votes. California could be the future of America. White/Jewish elites, Asian technocratic class, brown low-wage helot peons. Blacks will get some gubment jobs but not much else. White working class will die out on meth and fatty food. What a future.
OT – Why would Trump appear at tomorrow’s debate on Fox? Why would he appear with Kelly when he boycotted her last time? Is the audience going to be packed with Jeb, I mean Rubio, supporters again? Trump is risking far more than the other candidates by appearing in these debates.
Gregory Bateson said that every schoolboy should know that
"THERE ARE NO MONOTONE "VALUES" IN BIOLOGY
A monotone value is one that either only increases or only decreases. Its curves has no kinks; that is, its curve never changes from increase to decrease or vice versa. Desired substances, things, patterns, or sequences of experience that are in some sense "good" for the organism - items of diet, conditions of life, temperature, entertainment, sex, and so forth - are never such that more of the something is always better than less of the something. Rather, for all objects and experiences, there is a quantity that has optimum value. Above that quantity, the variable becomes toxic. To fall below that value is to be deprived.
This characteristic of biological value does not hold for money. Money is always transitively valued. More money is supposedly always better than less money. Fore example, $1001 is to be preferred to $1000. But this is not so for biological values. More calcium is not always better than less calcium. There is an optimum quantity of calcium that a given organism may need in its diet. Beyond this, calcium becomes toxic. Similarly, for oxygen that we breathe or food or components of diet and probably all components of relationship, enough is better than a feast. We can even have too much psychotherapy. A relationship with no combat in it is dull, and a relationship with too much combat in it is toxic. What is desirable is a relationship with a certain optimum of conflict. It is even possible that when we consider money, not by itself, but as acting on human beings who own it, we may find that money, too, becomes toxic beyond a certain point. In any case, the philosophy of money, the set of presuppositions by which money is supposedly better and better the more you have of it, is totally antibiological. It seems, nevertheless, that this philosophy can be taught to living things."
http://www.oikos.org/m&nschoolboy.htmReplies: @Anonym
That’s true for money as well. Excess money makes one a target and carries associated risk. IQ and a certain level of precaution/paranoia are useful to retain/increase wealth, and to stay alive. How did that extra money work out for Anna Nicole Smith and progeny?
I think for some strata of society or people there is a realization of this and a dulling of attraction maybe as a selected result, e.g. for excess IQ or wealth. There are those women who know on an instinctual level that a life in the elite is not for them.
OT, but the real, as in flesh-and-blood, source of vicious crime against UVA students plead guilty to two murders. It’s way too grim to crack a Haven Monahan joke here, but it is worth remembering that Sabrina Rubin Erdely was so desperate to score points against the UVA admins and fraternities, she had only time for a passing mention of a serial rapist, one who had skated out of two previous rape charges when the victims declined to press charges. Jesse Matthew was a one man wave of rape and murder, but not interesting enough for out overlords.
Take a good close look because this is what the narrative desperately does not want you to see. All we are supposed to do is internalize the blood libels against us like good sheep.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35713176
Trump will say it to her face after he wins the nomination and has a one-on-one debate with her.
I agree. What’s the point of having anymore Republican debates. There have already been too many.
"It's true, as I pointed out, that Trump denounced Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, on Friday. And he did so again Sunday on Twitter. But his excuse for not doing so on CNN yesterday not only fails the smell test but does so in spectacular fashion. "
So it's not good enough for Trump to denounce David Duke 2 days out of every 3. He has to come out and denounce Emmanuel Goldstein - oops I mean David Duke EVERY DAY from now until November in order to prove his loyalty to the Inner Party. Anyone who doesn't denounce Duke on a daily basis (FIVE times a day while facing Mecca would be even better) reveals himself to be a fascist just by this omission.
And if you don't like this litmus test, we've got plenty more for you - reporters will be dangling litmus tests in front of Trump's nose ten times a day and if he passes 99 out of 100 of them, then the one he flunks will be the opening story on the national news - "Donald Trump kicks kittens and babies!" But for Hillary it will be nothing but softballs. At some point even the dull witted low information voters will catch on to the game. At least one can hope.Replies: @Anon7
I thought Trump should point out some of the crazies that support Bernie Sanders (there must be some) and force him to disavow them.
Like Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, member of Pussy Riot, convicted of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” after a performance in Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.
Here’s a list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#International_politicians
Was Bourdieu’s point specifically about “better”?
I took it as more like “mapped to new terrain.” In the service of distinguishing oneself, one’s movement, one’s society, whatever, from others. You know, that thing about differance as ding an sich. The coining of new forms of symbolic capital, and the power regimes created around those.
(Sorry for the sentence fragments, but I can’t seem to write about that post-post-post-modern stuff otherwise. It seems to beg for incomplete ideas.)
Agree too.
At least with Queen Victoria’s “royal ‘we’” (“we are not amused”) an Englishman, even one still waiting for the vote in the 19th century, would have known she was referring to herself, her household, or, at a stretch, the views of the Prime Minister and government.
Modern politicians like Paul Ryan, (“not who we are”) and Hillary are therefore assuming a collective meaning of ‘we’ beyond what V.R. did. Sloppy language use or a nefarious resumption by modern politicians of freedom of opinion?
The code of conduct in a society, which is not laid down by law, varies over time.
This is not a good translation as we already know society is not laid down by law...
Society's code of conduct, which is not...
Improved already.
Really? Nobody is translating this? Even the interesting, juicy bits? Anyone?That's quite interesting. I'm going to have to think more about whether Aristotle's moderation is really related to marginal utility. Is that an original idea, or do you have links to people who have fleshed it out more?When I read sh-t like this, it makes me so pissed off that there are people with Cadillac SUVs who think this. People without a lot of money are obviously people who should be excluded. Who are these idiots?Oh really? 'Cause I thought the whole Julia Child thing (not that that was a 71-81 phenom) was brought on by an American. Likewise, there's that kitchen-ware store that originated in CA that I can't remember the name of that was started by an American.
I think that this whole restaurant thing is something about which people are basically ignorant and are just being lazy about. My guess is that if somebody actually investigated the matter, it would turn out that the flowering of deliciousness in the US is the result of a native white interest in food crossed with increased tourism, business travel, international trade in foodstuffs, etc. This would agree with the general outline of history in which Europeans spend enormous sums to acquire new flavor profiles from the exotic East.
There is of course the issue of native taste profiles. Any perusal of old cookbooks will reveal egregious substitutions. We assume immigrants have killed these off. But I'm not sure. Is the improvement in Thai cuisine in the US (Thai food is very delicately balanced and complex) the result of more Thais moving to the US and refusing to modify their dishes for American taste, or is due to the SWPL natives backpacking in Thailand and finding out what Thai food really tastes like?There's another aspect here which you've overlooked. Going beyond marginal utility, there's the question whether the first 56,000,000 Hispanics contributed anything. If the 56,000,001 Hispanic is the guy who opens El Huarache Aztecala ( http://www.elhuaracheaztecala.com ), he's added a lot more than the other losers.
So immigration is not just about critical mass. I think you get the point and can take it from here...
Also, you should go to El Huarache Aztecala. I went in November, and it was fantastic.The media plays a pretty big role in your story. Since the Interwebs didn't kill NYTimes yet, do you have a plan?I don't think that's quite right. China is bleeding billionaires and would like to keep them, and, I suspect, would like to get billionaires to immigrate if they would, but they won't. Other countries that need an influx of wealth and/or talent are... Mongolia, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar... but nobody is moving there.
I have no sense of the situation in Taiwan.
Japan sensibly discriminates based on race, education, and wealth, but many young Japanese are, due to globalized media, becoming part of the US Democratic Party base. At the same time, what Japanese call "Asians"--Filipinos, Indians, etc--are becoming good at taking advantage of the visa rules set in place to accommodate Europeans and Americans. So there are uneducated Nepalis who grew up as shepherds working here as cooks under the Engineering/Specialist in Humanities/International Services visa... a bullshit visa if there ever was one...
And Singapore is a whore who will let anybody ride as long as they pay.Replies: @AndrewR, @Intelligent Dasein
Aristotle defined the moral virtues as being means of behavior falling between two extremes, the extremes being either vices of excess or vices of defect. For example, the virtue of courage, meaning that habit of the soul which conduces to courageous behavior, perfects itself by avoiding both the defect of cowardliness and the excess of irascibility. For this reason Aristotle refers to the moral virtues as means.
However, it is important to recognize the many things that such language was not meant to indicate. For Aristotle, the mean was not a midpoint or median between extremes. In the example just given, the virtue of courage inclines more to the excess than the deficiency, for irascibility resembles courage in a certain way while cowardliness resembles it not at all. Furthermore, since the virtues are powers of the soul which make a man good, and the good man is he who does what he does because it good, it follows that virtuous actions are not real or legitimate unless they are loved and chosen for their own sake and not for any other end.
All of this has little to do with what we oftentimes mean by “moderation” today. For Aristotle, the whole of ethics was a subset of political science. Virtues are powers of the soul required for building up a polis, wherewith man can fulfill his destiny as a political animal; and the polis in turn was a training ground for virtuous men. Being ethical means simply being complete, not erring one way or the other in what needs to be done.
You can certainly say at this point that something like marginal utility is not entirely alien to Aristotle’s description, but the utility pertains to individual happiness, which is the only end of ethics, and not to the needs of the modern state. The problem is that the modern superstate is no longer a polis. If we were really virtuous, we wouldn’t even have the monstrous thing. Utility in the modern state is usually just vice at the personal level.
If he means "born in France", well ok. But why is "native American" never used to refer to people whose ancestors did not live in America in the fifteenth century?Replies: @Frau Katze
Because ethnic Europeans and their descendants overseas are ALWAYS the bad guys.
The media always paints us as badly possibly, hence the double standard. The French are obliged to “celebrate diversity” because foreigners can only improve their ghastly culture.
But in North America, the word “native” can never be applied to us, no matter how many generations we’ve been here. We are forever evil for our ancestors coming here.
What are these “respectable concepts”? Is it immigration reform, or white genocide? Is it limited government, or neo-reactionary politics? Is it free market, or crony capitalism? Depends exclusively on how the media and bloggers for the Coalition of the Right Fringes or the Coalition of the Left Fringes shapes it for public consumption.
“Politicians rely on the media for their ideas, so political correctness leads to policy incompetence.”
It’s not political correctness, it’s political hackery. For every Democrat who espouses “Black Lives Matters”, there is R-K selection theory as espoused by Anonymous Conservative and his toadies. For every conservative who touts Roosh’s Neomasculinity, there is an SJW demanding an end to “white privilege”. Perhaps the fine bloggers here should look in their own backyard to see who is invading their safe spaces and seeking refuge under the guise of “conservative” or “liberal" principles.
"Amazing, too, how the same folks praising Merkel are using Ancient Rome analogies to claim Trump is going to be the end of our republic."
Amazing, too, how the same folks praising Trump are using the "barbarians at the gates" rhetoric to claim that liberals and "cuckservatives" are facilitating the demise of America within the next twenty years. Looking forward toward the racial civil wars and the ultimate "reboot".Replies: @JimL
Re political correctness/political hackery, the Democrats who espouse BLM, either as true believers or cynics pandering to the party’s base, have real power as evidenced, for example, by the DOJ’s program to send the City of Ferguson into bankruptcy a few years earlier than it would otherwise get there. In contrast those who advocate the R-K selection theory have no power and would be well advised to hide their identity.