The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Are There Any Influential Woke Thinkers Who Are Smart?
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.

But who since then?

Kimberle Crenshaw for inventing the term “intersectionialism”?

The guy who invented “microaggression”?

Not exactly heavyweights…

I’ve often pointed out that a distinguishing feature of The Great Awokening is its lowbrowness: e.g., first there was Ta-Nehisi Coates, and now there is Ibram X. Kendi.

But help me out here. Are there any real smart Woke intellectuals who I am overlooking?

 
Hide 223 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Consequence of their own destruction of education and of their personal aversion to rigor. Had they left education more intact, had they done more math, they’re be able to use it themselves.
    I can think of a handful of examples, but none are fitting all the criteria. There are plenty of lefty academics and some are quite young, but none have anywhere near the seriousness, the range (in things they can discuss), or the audience of a Foucault or a Chomsky. Even the famous ones are known solely for their original field and are thought of as academics instead of as great intellectuals.

    THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
    Marianne Williamson has withdrawn from the Democratic presidential candidate race.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Marianne Williamson could still get it.
  2. Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    , @Anonymous

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart.
     
    We are not talking of mere intelligence. We are talking about creative, original, visionary, and/or radical thinking. Most hokey-wokey stuff is just mantras and chants, even among high IQ people.

    But the problem isn't only PC but pop culture, shallow sensibility, and lack of immersive mindset.
    Take Susan Sontag. She grew up at a time when intellectuals spent long hours reading serious books on philosophy and highbrow novels. They didn't have TV and pop culture hadn't yet taken over. So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture.

    But in the age of pop culture, it's more about attitude. Also, it's considered hip to multi-task. So, one could be reading a serious book, have the TV on, check internet so often, and etc. Take Tarantino. He grew up prior to internet but the multi-sensibility mind is already there. He can't tell the difference between art film and kung fu films. There's a glibness and smugness. Hipster bluster than deep immersion into anything.

    Today's ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes. Also, there is a drug-sensibility about it. People vape on 'outrage' like on drugs. It's for instant highs.

    Foucault, Sontag, Kael, Said, Mailer, and etc were often anti-conservative and anti-bourgeois, but what they all had in common was they grew up in a bourgeois intellectual culture of respectability and high art and serious ideas. So, even as they made trouble, they were grounded in deep culture. But since then, the core sensibility of even the educated has been pop culture and pop attitudes.

    I mean, just how did HAMILTON become such a sensation among the elites? Dumb dumb world. It doesn't matter how smart you are in IQ. If you're dumb in mindset, you won't think. It's like Mao's China had lots of smart people but their minds were set on quoting from the Little Red Book. Now, even elites grow up to Rap as poetry.

    Woke isn't just about ideology. It's about culture as even pop songs and advertising are part of idol-driven ideology. Woke is a Choke on thought.

    , @PhysicistDave
    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.
     
    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of "woke" UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions -- they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this "They must be smart to be making that much": a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully "woke," even to be good at faking being truly "woke," no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Altai I argue along your lines of thought in No. 73.
  3. What use is a real smart Woke intellectual with domesticated live stock for an audience ?

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    The clever ones have nothing but cattle as an audience?
    What a woke comment! I feel suitably chastised by your superior intellect, o Great Woke One. Me and my fellow ruminating beasts will just wander off out of your godly sight, shall we?
  4. Spoke too soon. Check this out, taking care that you check it out “structurally” if you know what I mean.
    https://postimg.cc/JGkdJ2fk
    Rhea Boyd is a Bay Area pediatrician who graduated Lotterius Ghettocus to being diversity officer for Harvard’s Public Heath school.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/RheaBoydMD/status/1215674129514319877

    https://twitter.com/JonathanMetzl/status/1215643959126446081

  5. W.E.B. DuBois

    • Agree: Just Saying
    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
    Certainly an intellectual, hardly even woke-"adjacent".
  6. The whole point of wokeness is to get rid of intellectual standards to promote people who otherwise would be ignored.

    • Agree: Andy
  7. proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way. their numbers are legion, so maybe you can’t point to any one or two particular leaders, but they have bee wildly successful, don’t you think? they’re on the verge of convincing western europeans, the most dominant humans who ever lived, to voluntarily give up their countries, and eventually, even their existence.

    my vote is for the prosecutors of Cultural Marxism, whoever they may be. largely Jewish, influential perhaps beyond comprehension. never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds"

    Perhaps not in a self negating sense, but in a destructive sense Marx and Freud surely did the same thing, with much greater damage in Marx's case. Mind viruses seem to be a speciality.

    , @bomag

    ... never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds.
     
    Plenty of smaller groups, before the era of mass communication, have taken wrong turns.

    It's easier to destroy than to build.
  8. @Altai
    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    • Replies: @newrouter
    >But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?<

    No " Big Brains". The man behind the "Open Society"curtain: Soros.
    , @J.Ross
    Possible explanation: the whole point of CultMarx was to use culture and education to get around institutions (I can't pass or even offer to a committee X law, but I can write a novel or shoot a movie about how people are totally suffering without the legalization of X, or I can write articles and nonfiction books persuading that X just makes sense, or indoctrinate all my students about X even though I teach music theory, and if I'm any good that will percolate through levels of respectability until somebody now in the institutions does it for me), but now they firmly have all the institutions, so they care as deeply as the Virginia state legislature what you think. Lefties are always like the heroin addict hustling to get the next fix (oh, I don't need use big words now that we department head? DROPPED!) and abandon the prestige of intellect, which after all overlaps uncomfortably with structural privilege, as soon as possible. Righties on the other hand love ritual and familiarity, and will retain postdated skills like cursive regardless of goals.
    ----
    Compare:
    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/239191204
    Anon claiming to work for a public library system which pushed Drag Queen Story Hour says that it was all a clever ruse, that the controversy generated will now be harnessed to further wokify the library system, with a new inquisition of diversity officers. May details and some video offered, none of it looks like a larp, and there will be witches's sabbath coming up where they discuss more bright ideas. Notice that the plan if true depends entirely on holding institutional power and contemptuous detachment from the wider culture. This is the opposite of what was possible and what they would do in the past, when they had to work from the outside and depend on the support of a gullible public. But it is a lot like the boneheaded own-foot-shooting that Bolsheviks and Italian commies and other earlier iterations would dive into once in power.
    , @Desiderius
    The ones Beauchamp and friends are listing.

    Wokeness is reactionary. It has anti-Christs rather than Christs.
    , @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over
    , @Lot
    Steve’s list of old time smart leftist celebrity intellectuals is missing the elderly king, Chomsky.

    The type of academic perches someone can use to be a celebrity leftist intellectual is now filled by:

    1. Elderly non-productive professors drawing a full salary and crowding out others.

    2. Affirmative action hires

    3. White and asian guys who are so scared and brainwashed they just blindly imitate the drivel of the affirmative action hires

    The few remaining slots for real humanities and soft social scientists that are open to bright young white or asian men are fiercely competitive and tend to go to quant types. Even for something like English, you get guys who run giant complex software analysis of word usage databases. Or philosophy you have AI natural language guys and symbolic logicians.
    , @Thursday
    Judith Butler has been a huge influence on wokery and is still alive and working. She’s nuts, but seems about as smart as Foucault et al. If you want a lucid summary of her work, I would suggest Sarah Salih’s book.
    , @JIng
    You are right, there are very few.

    Maybe Loïc Wacquant, Mike Davis?
    , @Dieter Kief
    I

    Jürgen Habermas is still alive. He out-faucauled Foucault. In China there re thousands of serious Habermas scholars – and bright ones too. Just how woke they are is something entirely different.

    II

    I think in the direction of Altai in comment No. 2 above. The battle is won. What we see is now what happens at times, if battles are won – a deep relaxation. People enjoy the peace-dividend of the intellectual battles on the left but – this is what Georg Wilhelm Friedrich – – – Hegel understood – this kind of relaxation is corrupting for the masters (= dialectics of the servant and the master).

    So in this state of corruption, the masters still rule, but they lose their bite and along comes: – The Codling of the American Mind (Haidt/Lukianoff) – we see now the intellectually deteriorating left = the Regressive Left (Dave Rubin).

    The winners of the great battles of the Sixties and Seventies are still dominating the public sphere but they more and more trade in their intellectual edge, their curiousness, their ability to make distinctions altogether as tools of the past, which would be in their way now, since things like that would now stand between them and their – huge (!) woke following, which is anti-intellectual and pro-feeling instead.

    Lots of leftists are still bright, but that’s in part, why they act woke – it now makes strategically more sense to act as Big Feelers than to pubicly act as Big Thinkers. Thing is: This strategy has made the left (publicly!) so plain out dumb already, that they risk losing their self-esteem. And that is a serious threat already.

    Also once leftist public figures now turn away from the leftist mainstream and/or publicly oppose it – see Pinker, Peterson, Paglia, Haidt – Lilla (?), Thilo Sarrazin, David Goodhart, Macron (?), Matteo Salvini, Danish Islam- and immigration critic and (!) President Mette Frederiksen…

    , @Hypnotoad666
    Wokeness doesn't really have any heavyweight intellectual leaders because it's the opposite of intellectual.

    It is just a set of subjective, alogical preferences. In particular: Male/straight/white/western = Bad; Female/queer/POC/non-western = Good.

    You simply don't need deep intellectual insights or leaders to chant mantras. Instead, wokeness spreads by shouting louder and more often, and by silencing the opposition. Not by persuasion and intellectual philosophizing.

    The closest thing to Woke intellectualism might be those academics who coin jargon based on talking about their own feelings. Like the woman who coined the term "white privilege" based on her imagining that she had a "magical backpack" (or whatever) full of such stuff.

    It's almost too lame to count as an ideology, much less an intellectual movement.

    In short, it's only "leaders" are morons on Twitter and hacks at the NYT and Vox. Serious intellectuals are entirely superfluous.

    , @Dr. X

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?
     
    It's a great question. There aren't any "big brains" behind the contemporary wokeness. They're bureaucrats.

    The countercultural, anti-bourgeois movement of the 1960s needed intellectuals to challenge the bourgeois order. Now that the Left had succeeded in creating the new, neo-Marxist "establishment," and now that that establishment is in power, it only needs mere functionaries to carry out its agenda.
    , @Autochthon

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?
     
    TL;DR: No intellectual people are any longer influential and intelligence is "faggy" and despised. ("Go 'way. Batin'!") As evidenced by the TL;DR thing itself and people's refusal or inability to read or write complete sentences. The influencers are not the intellectuals...

    Well, they do not have astounding intellect in the way, say, J.R.R. Tolkien, John Stuart Mill, or Søren Kierkegaard (my "philosophers" infra) did. The "big brains" behind this stuff are clever, more than they are genius, and gifted at manipulation (my "shysters" infra) – they were not in the gifted programme at school, but, rather, on the homecoming court and the student council. As has been pointed out, these latter people know good and well the batshit ideologies they promote are unsound for society as a whole, but they do not mind because the policies benefit them; they are alright, Jack, and they've a cozy bolthole or two in New Zealand or Uruguay – not that they would even need that, since, after all, life in Brasil, India, or even Nigeria is not all that bad if one is a millionaire. (N.B. their own revealed preferences for nuclear families private schools and detached houses on large parcels of land in the few remaining peaceful areas populated European stock, behind fences with gatehouses or in penthouses with doormen).

    Who specifically are these people? Why they are your iSteve's bread and butter: Willie Brown, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Anderson Cooper, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Kathleen Kennedy, Tim Cook, Larry Page, Sergey Brin....

    Especially intelligent people whose focus is the human condition and who thus address fundamental sociopolitical questions like those debated at The Unz Review will be honest and clear sighted (stupidity correlates with immorality; evil geniuses are rarer than depraved morons), and they are often constitutionally incapable of the prevaricating and conniving required for the success at the Machiavellian and Byzantine shenanigans behind pushing "wokeness" – that's the wheelhouse of the Browns, Coopers, and Kennedys. Let us call the first sort the philosophers or statesmen, and the second sort the shysters or rentiers. (A third kind of especially intelligent person is your Edwin Hubble, obsessed with his astronomy and usually not paying much attention to the affairs of either the philosophers or the shysters – call them the scientists if you like.)

    So, then, the philosophers (the Kierkegaards mentioned above, if you like, and what I think is meant by others' citation of Chomsky and Foucault, though I politely disagree they merit that high regard) are not to be found among the batshit "woke." The shysters take care of all the heavy lifting needed, and they do quite well.

    So, no, one will not find intellectuals of that calibre and type cheerleading the destruction of Western civilisation. Q.E.D. The super intelligent philosophers and scientists are few, honest, and either unheeded or uninterested; the shysters of middling intelligence run the whole show just as they like. Hell, it's really almost like Boulle's chimpanzees and orangutans being kept in line by his gorillas. It's okay: Jeff Bezos does not mind if a peon like me reckons his intellect middling.

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2018-01-03-at-2.18.01-PM.png
    , @Lagertha
    Me, and the shitloads of people who are worked-up over your post. Bottom line: we will not determine by other people/authorities how we will live. We will live within our talents and strengnth.
  9. @J.Ross
    Consequence of their own destruction of education and of their personal aversion to rigor. Had they left education more intact, had they done more math, they're be able to use it themselves.
    I can think of a handful of examples, but none are fitting all the criteria. There are plenty of lefty academics and some are quite young, but none have anywhere near the seriousness, the range (in things they can discuss), or the audience of a Foucault or a Chomsky. Even the famous ones are known solely for their original field and are thought of as academics instead of as great intellectuals.
    ---
    THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
    Marianne Williamson has withdrawn from the Democratic presidential candidate race.

    Marianne Williamson could still get it.

    • LOL: bomag
  10. Since these woke “intellectuals” refuse to debate people with different viewpoints, as it seems easier for them to dismiss doubters as fascist-racist-sexist-homophobic-blah blah blah, they are actually very weak thinkers, when people shows the many holes in their arguments they immediately go into ad hominem attacks – you are old, you are white, you are male, blah blah blah (of course, perhaps I got the causality backwards, they refuse to debate SINCE they are weak thinkers). Anyway, these “intellectuals” are just incapable of getting into a reasoned argument

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Since these woke “intellectuals” refuse to debate people with different viewpoints
     
    Another problem is they are afraid of their own fans.

    It's like MISERY by King.

    If the thinkers don't stick to the narrative, they may be devoured by their own fans.

    Real thought is nearly impossible under such circumstances.

    Even though 'radical' and 'leftist', it also has appeal to the elites. Look at UK. The elites took to PC as the neo-hoity-toitiness. It's a new way to be fussy and finicky. "Waiter, there is 'xenophobia' in my soup." Just consider how the elites invoke PC to demean the masses as 'deplorables' or 'Islamophobes' or 'homophobes' or 'transphobes' or some such. Esp the rise of globo-homo was instrumental in turning new 'leftism' into an elitist thing as homos are naturally neo-aristo.

    From pitchfork to dirtyfork

    https://youtu.be/tKrGHQA5qhM?t=33

    , @animalogic
    "Since these woke “intellectuals” refuse to debate people with different viewpoints, as it seems easier for them to dismiss doubters as fascist-racist-sexist-homophobic-"
    You've hit the nail on the head here. Unwillingness to debate is a key indicator of ideological rather than academic goals.
    That they believe their views are beyond debate (ie proven 100% for all time) is symptomatic of intellectual decadence. Politicians not intellectuals. And piss-weak politicians at that.
  11. Low quality thinking is no bar to success when one has the megaphone.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Low quality thinking is no bar to success when one has the megaphone."

    It's not just access to the megaphone, they've always had that. What changed things was the internet took peer pressure from a few dozen to tens of thousands.
  12. If you think that YouTubers are/will have a growing effect on public discourse, then there seems to be a growing class of smarter woke thinkers (talkers?). ContraPoints, Shaun, PhilosophyTube, Destiny, etc. — all affiliated with the “BreadTube” movement. Though, interestingly, it’s clear the smartest of them – definitely ContraPoints and Destiny – are not down the line woke, much to chagrin of parts of their fanbases.

    • Replies: @Michael S
    YouTube vloggers do have an outsized influence on public discourse, not because of the medium, but because they offered an alternative to the woke party line.

    The joke that is "breadtube" has no audience and never will. Warmed-over Marxism isn't a scarce commodity. The superpower of the Megaphone is to force memes and raise mediocrity to popular relevance and official legitimacy; YouTube has no competitive advantage over the prestige press as a medium for that.
  13. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    >But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?<

    No " Big Brains". The man behind the "Open Society"curtain: Soros.

  14. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Possible explanation: the whole point of CultMarx was to use culture and education to get around institutions (I can’t pass or even offer to a committee X law, but I can write a novel or shoot a movie about how people are totally suffering without the legalization of X, or I can write articles and nonfiction books persuading that X just makes sense, or indoctrinate all my students about X even though I teach music theory, and if I’m any good that will percolate through levels of respectability until somebody now in the institutions does it for me), but now they firmly have all the institutions, so they care as deeply as the Virginia state legislature what you think. Lefties are always like the heroin addict hustling to get the next fix (oh, I don’t need use big words now that we department head? DROPPED!) and abandon the prestige of intellect, which after all overlaps uncomfortably with structural privilege, as soon as possible. Righties on the other hand love ritual and familiarity, and will retain postdated skills like cursive regardless of goals.
    —-
    Compare:
    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/239191204
    Anon claiming to work for a public library system which pushed Drag Queen Story Hour says that it was all a clever ruse, that the controversy generated will now be harnessed to further wokify the library system, with a new inquisition of diversity officers. May details and some video offered, none of it looks like a larp, and there will be witches’s sabbath coming up where they discuss more bright ideas. Notice that the plan if true depends entirely on holding institutional power and contemptuous detachment from the wider culture. This is the opposite of what was possible and what they would do in the past, when they had to work from the outside and depend on the support of a gullible public. But it is a lot like the boneheaded own-foot-shooting that Bolsheviks and Italian commies and other earlier iterations would dive into once in power.

  15. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    The ones Beauchamp and friends are listing.

    Wokeness is reactionary. It has anti-Christs rather than Christs.

  16. @J.Ross
    Spoke too soon. Check this out, taking care that you check it out "structurally" if you know what I mean.
    https://postimg.cc/JGkdJ2fk
    Rhea Boyd is a Bay Area pediatrician who graduated Lotterius Ghettocus to being diversity officer for Harvard's Public Heath school.

    https://twitter.com/RheaBoydMD/status/1215674129514319877

    • Replies: @animalogic
    Dying of whiteness. Defending whiteness kills etc.
    So the "despair" is not from inter-generational unemployment, not from a sense of hopelessness, ill-education, rubbish health care, family disorder or break down or use of drugs etc to deaden the symptoms of the above. NO. None of that. It's "racial resentment". It's all about defending ones "whiteness".
    I have rarely encountered anything as unequivocally fucking stupid as the above (or as vicious & nasty -- these racialists are complete bastards)
  17. Martha Nussbaum?

    • Replies: @Lot
    Nussbaum is a giant brain, but wrote the classic takedown of Judith Butler and her Foucault garbage here:

    https://bordeure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/the-professor-of-parody.pdf

    Very unwoke.
  18. We have to separate “thinkers” from “politicians.” “Thinkers” need to be smart to gain notoriety but “politicians” only need to be successfully manipulative. Is there really any “woke thinker” or is “wokeness” strictly politics?

    • Replies: @Bubba

    Is there really any “woke thinker” or is “wokeness” strictly politics?
     
    The latter and it is far worse than politics.

    The term "woke thinker" is a participation trophy for morons.

  19. Anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart.

    We are not talking of mere intelligence. We are talking about creative, original, visionary, and/or radical thinking. Most hokey-wokey stuff is just mantras and chants, even among high IQ people.

    But the problem isn’t only PC but pop culture, shallow sensibility, and lack of immersive mindset.
    Take Susan Sontag. She grew up at a time when intellectuals spent long hours reading serious books on philosophy and highbrow novels. They didn’t have TV and pop culture hadn’t yet taken over. So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture.

    But in the age of pop culture, it’s more about attitude. Also, it’s considered hip to multi-task. So, one could be reading a serious book, have the TV on, check internet so often, and etc. Take Tarantino. He grew up prior to internet but the multi-sensibility mind is already there. He can’t tell the difference between art film and kung fu films. There’s a glibness and smugness. Hipster bluster than deep immersion into anything.

    Today’s ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes. Also, there is a drug-sensibility about it. People vape on ‘outrage’ like on drugs. It’s for instant highs.

    Foucault, Sontag, Kael, Said, Mailer, and etc were often anti-conservative and anti-bourgeois, but what they all had in common was they grew up in a bourgeois intellectual culture of respectability and high art and serious ideas. So, even as they made trouble, they were grounded in deep culture. But since then, the core sensibility of even the educated has been pop culture and pop attitudes.

    I mean, just how did HAMILTON become such a sensation among the elites? Dumb dumb world. It doesn’t matter how smart you are in IQ. If you’re dumb in mindset, you won’t think. It’s like Mao’s China had lots of smart people but their minds were set on quoting from the Little Red Book. Now, even elites grow up to Rap as poetry.

    Woke isn’t just about ideology. It’s about culture as even pop songs and advertising are part of idol-driven ideology. Woke is a Choke on thought.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture."

    We still do. It's just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.

    "Today’s ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes."

    What is "today's ideology"? I never heard of it before.
  20. With respect to American academia, and via academia to the rest of society, Foucault, hands down.

  21. I think the question puts a spotlight on the possibility that real world smartness and I.Q. might not be synonymous. If a high- I.Q. individual is more susceptible to the conformity instinct than a slightly lower I.Q. person who has, say, a dominant contrarian gene, who is actually smarter?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way.
     
    The biggest obstacle to thought is taboo than dogma. While dogmas can breed taboos, some taboos take on a life of its own and define the dogma. It's the difference between Christian dogma and Christian purism of the nuttiest kind.
    Dwight MacDonald was once a Trotskyite and remained a leftist intellectual all his life. But he lived in a democratic free world when there were fewer emotion-driven taboos in arts and culture. So, he freely spoke about everything. He could praise Soviet film-makers and also D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION. He sympathized with blacks, but blacks were not sacred objects back then. Neither were Jews.

    But PC has hardened taboos to the point where Jews, blacks, and homos are not merely favored but sacrosanct. And 'racism' isn't merely wrong but the greatest evil of all time. And even the slightest show of white identity or interest is an abomination.

    Such taboos turn people into either stone-hard true believers or weak-kneed craven cowards. PC dogmatist see the world in terms of total good and total evil. And those who don't agree dare not say anything because the power of taboo is so strong that any dissenter could be destroyed. These taboos have taken over the culture.

    When even JK Rowling is attacked for saying the obvious about sexes, the power of taboos are out of control.

    The power of taboos not only destroyed leftist thinking -- only rigid robots are promoted -- but rightist thinking because the sheer cowardice of 'conservatives' is to avoid violating the taboos. Taboo-driven rage turned 'leftist' thinking into idiocy, and taboo-driven cowardice turned 'rightist' thinking into endless appeasement.

    National Review was far more interesting when there was still space in the US for discourse on race and ethnicity. But ever since it began to cower before Jewish Power and Taboos, it's been of timidity and pussy-footing. Conservatism is now dorky Lowry and Charlie Kirk. What is the new 'right'? 'Gay marriage' is a 'conservative value'.
  22. Jeet Heer is pretty smart IMHO.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Jeet Heer is pretty smart IMHO.
     
    No.
  23. You cannot be woke and smart at the same time unless you’re faking one quality or both at the same time.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    This reminds me of an observation they used to make in Soviet-dominated Poland:

    "You can be intelligent, you can be sincere, or you can be a Communist. In fact, you can be any two, but not all three."

    Replace Communist with Woke.
  24. I think there’s a solid argument that Lin-Manuel Miranda is smart. Dad was a PhD in psychology (back when that meant something), mom was a upper tier political operative, sister is a chief financial officer at a mid tier investment bank, he’s reached the pinnacle of his craft.
    I get that there’s a lot of political tail-wind but I think he stands on his own feet as “smart”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Miranda took Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton to read on the beach on vacation, where he got the idea for his magnum opus.

    He's a bright guy, although that's by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume.

  25. It’s a trick question. If any of these woke people were actually, genuinely “smart,” then they wouldn’t be “woke”. No actual smart person can tolerate woke impersonations of thought for more than a few seconds.

    Likewise, if somebody is truly “woke” then by definition they are not, and cannot be, a genuine intellectual.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave, Lurker
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    It’s a trick question. If any of these woke people were actually, genuinely “smart,” then they wouldn’t be “woke”. No actual smart person can tolerate woke impersonations of thought for more than a few seconds.

    Likewise, if somebody is truly “woke” then by definition they are not, and cannot be, a genuine intellectual.
     

    That is the best answer.

    Especially if one agrees that there is such a thing as truth and that some thinking is better than others. "Wokeness" stands in opposition to this very idea. It is opposed to Reason.

  26. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then. There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over."

    Thank you for NOTICING. I would say, however, that each niche market, whether it be business owners or Internet stars or millennials or young environmentalists, has their own leaders--people that you and I would give a Spockbrow to.

    Now, are today's normies even remotely interested in the Nietzsche's, Stoddard's, Foucault's, Said's, Gould's, West's, or Yarvin's or their predecessors on the left and on the right?

    Perhaps the pissing match regarding the positions taken by these intellectual heavyweights is the fodder for the Alt Right and leftist intelligentsia.

    , @anonymous coward
    "Beatles" and "Stones" were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.

    The social engineers who brought you "the Beatles" have since moved on to higher vistas, bringing you "gay marriage" and 51 genders, is all.
    , @Anonymous
    Seems to me that movies have remained less fractured than music. Though everything is available, on tap 24/7 these days. Every genre of music, every movie, every book if you like books. Also every video game. And porn.

    In some ways people are less theoretical than they used to be. Knowledge is easier to come by. People are harder to bamboozle, because you can google and find exceptions and counter-arguments. A lot of bad theories used to find more currency because people were more naive. There are still bad theories but they have to be pushed hard.

    It feels like we are in decline.
    , @Woodsie
    There are no leaders in the Age of Aquarius. The Age of The Ram (Aries) was the emergence of Monotheisim, Pisces, the fish, was the Christ Consciousness, the IDEA of God swimming through our minds (water is consciousness in the ancient paradigm), and in the New Age of The Water Carrier we will carry each our own consciousness.
    , @paranoid goy
    The same people who brought us the Stones and Beatles, namely the Tavistock Institute, a Rhodean-style genocidal thinkety-tank, now brings us thousands of toddlers on sex-change regime. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-gender diaspora. Their real achievement was the so-called Generation Gap, preventing grown-ups from teaching the children to laugh at the emperor's outfit. That is why kids think they are "woke" everytime they run into a facet of real life that can be circumvented by "the right thinking'. Any actual action would probably offend someone, so, just don't, okay? No-one was allowed to teach them otherwise, besides, education has been declared an "unsustainable activity" by all the most august of UN affilliates.
  27. @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a solid argument that Lin-Manuel Miranda is smart. Dad was a PhD in psychology (back when that meant something), mom was a upper tier political operative, sister is a chief financial officer at a mid tier investment bank, he’s reached the pinnacle of his craft.
    I get that there’s a lot of political tail-wind but I think he stands on his own feet as “smart”

    Miranda took Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton to read on the beach on vacation, where he got the idea for his magnum opus.

    He’s a bright guy, although that’s by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "He’s a bright guy, although that’s by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume."

    According to Who/Whom?
    , @Barnard
    Miranda was thrilled when Obama commuted the sentence of FALN terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera.
  28. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @JimDandy
    I think the question puts a spotlight on the possibility that real world smartness and I.Q. might not be synonymous. If a high- I.Q. individual is more susceptible to the conformity instinct than a slightly lower I.Q. person who has, say, a dominant contrarian gene, who is actually smarter?

    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way.

    The biggest obstacle to thought is taboo than dogma. While dogmas can breed taboos, some taboos take on a life of its own and define the dogma. It’s the difference between Christian dogma and Christian purism of the nuttiest kind.
    Dwight MacDonald was once a Trotskyite and remained a leftist intellectual all his life. But he lived in a democratic free world when there were fewer emotion-driven taboos in arts and culture. So, he freely spoke about everything. He could praise Soviet film-makers and also D.W. Griffith’s BIRTH OF A NATION. He sympathized with blacks, but blacks were not sacred objects back then. Neither were Jews.

    But PC has hardened taboos to the point where Jews, blacks, and homos are not merely favored but sacrosanct. And ‘racism’ isn’t merely wrong but the greatest evil of all time. And even the slightest show of white identity or interest is an abomination.

    Such taboos turn people into either stone-hard true believers or weak-kneed craven cowards. PC dogmatist see the world in terms of total good and total evil. And those who don’t agree dare not say anything because the power of taboo is so strong that any dissenter could be destroyed. These taboos have taken over the culture.

    When even JK Rowling is attacked for saying the obvious about sexes, the power of taboos are out of control.

    The power of taboos not only destroyed leftist thinking — only rigid robots are promoted — but rightist thinking because the sheer cowardice of ‘conservatives’ is to avoid violating the taboos. Taboo-driven rage turned ‘leftist’ thinking into idiocy, and taboo-driven cowardice turned ‘rightist’ thinking into endless appeasement.

    National Review was far more interesting when there was still space in the US for discourse on race and ethnicity. But ever since it began to cower before Jewish Power and Taboos, it’s been of timidity and pussy-footing. Conservatism is now dorky Lowry and Charlie Kirk. What is the new ‘right’? ‘Gay marriage’ is a ‘conservative value’.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The most dangerous word in the English language is the word "therefore." Tens of millions have died or worse, due to the misuse of this word.

    It is like dynamite, it has to be handled very, very carefully. The trouble we have right now is that "therefore" can only be used properly when used with the utmost honesty, integrity, and intellectual precision -- but it is used (figuratively if not literally) constantly by woke cretins who have no business going anywhere near it.

    That said, your point about taboos and the sacralization of Holy Identities is an excellent one, and can't be repeated often enough.
    , @JimDandy
    Really excellent stuff. Thanks. I will be re-reading that a number of times for sure.

    I think cultural background is a factor, too. I attribute at least some of the ways that I am "smart" to the fact that the dominant cultural influence in my family comes from countless generations of poor southern Italians. A prominent cultural trait of poor southern Italians is deep mistrust of government, eggheads, elites, etc. That ethnic tribal influence acts as a sort of armor against contemporary ideological-political tribal pressures. At least I like to think so.
  29. Men care about theory. Women care about fame whoring.

    • Disagree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "Men care about theory. Women care about fame whoring"

    That's not terribly far from Jordan Henderson's "Men test Ideas, Women test men."
  30. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andy
    Since these woke "intellectuals" refuse to debate people with different viewpoints, as it seems easier for them to dismiss doubters as fascist-racist-sexist-homophobic-blah blah blah, they are actually very weak thinkers, when people shows the many holes in their arguments they immediately go into ad hominem attacks - you are old, you are white, you are male, blah blah blah (of course, perhaps I got the causality backwards, they refuse to debate SINCE they are weak thinkers). Anyway, these "intellectuals" are just incapable of getting into a reasoned argument

    Since these woke “intellectuals” refuse to debate people with different viewpoints

    Another problem is they are afraid of their own fans.

    It’s like MISERY by King.

    If the thinkers don’t stick to the narrative, they may be devoured by their own fans.

    Real thought is nearly impossible under such circumstances.

    Even though ‘radical’ and ‘leftist’, it also has appeal to the elites. Look at UK. The elites took to PC as the neo-hoity-toitiness. It’s a new way to be fussy and finicky. “Waiter, there is ‘xenophobia’ in my soup.” Just consider how the elites invoke PC to demean the masses as ‘deplorables’ or ‘Islamophobes’ or ‘homophobes’ or ‘transphobes’ or some such. Esp the rise of globo-homo was instrumental in turning new ‘leftism’ into an elitist thing as homos are naturally neo-aristo.

    From pitchfork to dirtyfork

  31. @Anonymous

    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way.
     
    The biggest obstacle to thought is taboo than dogma. While dogmas can breed taboos, some taboos take on a life of its own and define the dogma. It's the difference between Christian dogma and Christian purism of the nuttiest kind.
    Dwight MacDonald was once a Trotskyite and remained a leftist intellectual all his life. But he lived in a democratic free world when there were fewer emotion-driven taboos in arts and culture. So, he freely spoke about everything. He could praise Soviet film-makers and also D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION. He sympathized with blacks, but blacks were not sacred objects back then. Neither were Jews.

    But PC has hardened taboos to the point where Jews, blacks, and homos are not merely favored but sacrosanct. And 'racism' isn't merely wrong but the greatest evil of all time. And even the slightest show of white identity or interest is an abomination.

    Such taboos turn people into either stone-hard true believers or weak-kneed craven cowards. PC dogmatist see the world in terms of total good and total evil. And those who don't agree dare not say anything because the power of taboo is so strong that any dissenter could be destroyed. These taboos have taken over the culture.

    When even JK Rowling is attacked for saying the obvious about sexes, the power of taboos are out of control.

    The power of taboos not only destroyed leftist thinking -- only rigid robots are promoted -- but rightist thinking because the sheer cowardice of 'conservatives' is to avoid violating the taboos. Taboo-driven rage turned 'leftist' thinking into idiocy, and taboo-driven cowardice turned 'rightist' thinking into endless appeasement.

    National Review was far more interesting when there was still space in the US for discourse on race and ethnicity. But ever since it began to cower before Jewish Power and Taboos, it's been of timidity and pussy-footing. Conservatism is now dorky Lowry and Charlie Kirk. What is the new 'right'? 'Gay marriage' is a 'conservative value'.

    The most dangerous word in the English language is the word “therefore.” Tens of millions have died or worse, due to the misuse of this word.

    It is like dynamite, it has to be handled very, very carefully. The trouble we have right now is that “therefore” can only be used properly when used with the utmost honesty, integrity, and intellectual precision — but it is used (figuratively if not literally) constantly by woke cretins who have no business going anywhere near it.

    That said, your point about taboos and the sacralization of Holy Identities is an excellent one, and can’t be repeated often enough.

  32. It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.

    What was malign about Rawls?

    • Agree: Cato
    • Replies: @Lot
    The idea that it is somehow unfair and unjust that good parents love their children more and raise them better.

    We just aren’t a bunch of disembodied souls who randomly shoot down into zygotes. Having good parents isn’t about the child’s luck, but the parents’ virtue.

    Shorter version: he sought to justify socialism, which is a fundamentally evil intellectual activity.
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "What was malign about Rawls?"

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity -- I am quite sure he meant well -- but his influence was deeply malign.

    "A Theory of Justice" is an unbelievably stupid book. It is cretinous, naive, and ignorant of human beings as a species. Its fundamental premise has absolutely no relation to human life as lived by humans. To give you an idea, it's even stupider than Plato's Republic. Nobody actually believes Plato, but still it's a fun and healthy exercise.

    The problem is, "A Theory of Justice" used to be required reading in several departments at Harvard -- so its insidious influence on young, impressionable, yet pathologically ambitious minds, has introduced all kinds of neurotoxins into our public discourse at the Halls of Power level. People who would never believe Plato, and would be right, were induced to believing Rawls.

    "They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!"
    , @Reg Cæsar

    What was malign about Rawls?
     
    Your good thing is about to come to an end.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1PhOhJOasFY
    , @Desiderius
    Et tu, Cato?
    , @alt right moderate
    John Rawls may have been influential among moderate left liberals in the 1970s, but his influence on society as a whole has been very limited. In terms of economic equality, which was Rawls main concern, America is more unequal than in was in the seventies, so he hasn't had much real world influence. In the economic sphere, right wing liberals like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand have probably had a lot more real world influence than Rawls.

    On the left, Its the radical cultural leftists that have had the greater influence. Modern America looks like the outcome of a non-aggression pact between right-wing liberals like Friedman and left-wing post modernists like Foucault.

  33. “Smart Woke” is an oxymoron. Being “Woke” is the willful complete ignorance and/or rejection of human nature as are all pseudo-intellectual fads.

  34. @Stolen Valor Detective
    Jeet Heer is pretty smart IMHO.

    Jeet Heer is pretty smart IMHO.

    No.

  35. In this case, I think we’re using smart = bright, vs merely high IQ.

    No, there are none. This is a feature. The system prefers to “make” people who would never be organically popular. A corollary is how there are few to no truly talented musicians among mega pop stars today. Too risky.

    But regardless the woke left has people who get things done. A dumb guy who can execute a dumb plan will beat a really smart guy who can’t execute his really smart plan.

    And a mid-wit (e.g. “sweet spot” IQ) who is unknowingly executing a pretty smart plan is of course going to wipe the floor with a really smart guy who can’t execute his own really smart plan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    In this case, I think we’re using smart = bright, vs merely high IQ.
     
    No, it's more like "brilliant, original, deep, penetrating, and/or profound". The neo-prophet of big think who lays down the template for new thought or offers many startling insights about society.

    The thing about Foucault is that even people who found him crazy, malicious, and totally wrong-headed nevertheless found many of his insights about power to be trenchant and useful. Same with Marx and Freud. Even if you reject their worldview and even if many of their ideas have been discredited, their approach to problems and the questions they raised inspired many for or against them. And even if Said way over-stated his case, there is more than a kernel of truth about Orientalism. With rise of neocon image of the Middle East via Hollywood and Zionist media -- a new Orientalism -- , it could be said that Said was prescient as well.

    Same is true of Heidegger. Even leftists who totally loathed his politics found his philosophy to be earth-shattering.

    One of the inspirations of thought is resistance and struggle. Marx lived in a capitalist world with many old structures still present. Freud too. There was the power and status quo for them to critique. But once communism prevailed in certain nations, Marxism went from interesting critique to mere state dogma. And what's the use of Freudianism in our age when all is porny, even at Disney? What use is sexual critique in a pornocracy? Pampered thinkers go soft.

    Homo thinkers like Foucault were interesting because they had the Power to struggle against. Now that homocracy is the thing, homos are more about keeping their privilege than asking provocative questions. Same with Jews. There are many smart Jews like in the past, but their main concern now is controlling free speech to keep their power.

    Also, the rise of identity politics undermined much of leftist thought. Classic leftist thought was about going beyond obstacles of culture and identity to arrive at deeper bonds of humanity or higher values to guide us all. But once identity became central, ideas and thought took a backseat to 'my people' or just 'myself'. When homos were in the closet, they had to think beyond homo-ness to appeal to all mankind. Now, homo thought wears high heels and just stares at the mirror and 'me, me, me'. There was a time when black thought was about proving that they are as good as whites and rest of humanity. Now, it's all about "We are better just becuz we be black." It's not about blacks being part of human justice but blackness = justice. It's lazy, narcissistic, and nihilist. By this logic, OJ is innocent, and blacks are always right just for being black.
    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts. Even those who insist race isn't real aren't doing so for universal humanism but to specifically to protect the feelings of blacks and serve the anxiety of Jews as both groups indulge in self-aggrandizement. Identity Politics altered the mode of leftist thought from macro-theory to micro-sensitivity. It went from grand theory to shake the world to pipsqueak complaints to avoid being triggered.
    Woke = Squeak.

  36. @Ivy guy
    Martha Nussbaum?

    Nussbaum is a giant brain, but wrote the classic takedown of Judith Butler and her Foucault garbage here:

    https://bordeure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/the-professor-of-parody.pdf

    Very unwoke.

  37. Rachel Jeantel. I mean, come on. Only the state of FL’s key witness in one of the trials of the 2010’s that, it could be argued, kicked off the whole wokeness, BLM, etc.

    Rachel Jeantel helped to woke up a lot of folks. There’s no Michael Brown hands up, etc without Rachel’s testimony regarding Trayvon.
    The President has stated that his hypothetical son would’ve resembled Trayvon. A large part of filling in the blanks was due to Rachel Jeantel.

  38. Regarding 1970’s intellectuals, how did Jacques Derrida get overlooked?

  39. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Steve’s list of old time smart leftist celebrity intellectuals is missing the elderly king, Chomsky.

    The type of academic perches someone can use to be a celebrity leftist intellectual is now filled by:

    1. Elderly non-productive professors drawing a full salary and crowding out others.

    2. Affirmative action hires

    3. White and asian guys who are so scared and brainwashed they just blindly imitate the drivel of the affirmative action hires

    The few remaining slots for real humanities and soft social scientists that are open to bright young white or asian men are fiercely competitive and tend to go to quant types. Even for something like English, you get guys who run giant complex software analysis of word usage databases. Or philosophy you have AI natural language guys and symbolic logicians.

  40. @Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.
     
    What was malign about Rawls?

    The idea that it is somehow unfair and unjust that good parents love their children more and raise them better.

    We just aren’t a bunch of disembodied souls who randomly shoot down into zygotes. Having good parents isn’t about the child’s luck, but the parents’ virtue.

    Shorter version: he sought to justify socialism, which is a fundamentally evil intellectual activity.

    • Disagree: Hypnotoad666
  41. Eric Williams, “Capitalism and Slavery”

  42. @Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.
     
    What was malign about Rawls?

    “What was malign about Rawls?”

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity — I am quite sure he meant well — but his influence was deeply malign.

    “A Theory of Justice” is an unbelievably stupid book. It is cretinous, naive, and ignorant of human beings as a species. Its fundamental premise has absolutely no relation to human life as lived by humans. To give you an idea, it’s even stupider than Plato’s Republic. Nobody actually believes Plato, but still it’s a fun and healthy exercise.

    The problem is, “A Theory of Justice” used to be required reading in several departments at Harvard — so its insidious influence on young, impressionable, yet pathologically ambitious minds, has introduced all kinds of neurotoxins into our public discourse at the Halls of Power level. People who would never believe Plato, and would be right, were induced to believing Rawls.

    “They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!”

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!”"

    "We meant well" is the title of a Chimp Diplomat- Peter van Buren, book (apologia) about the US slaughter in Iraq.

    That this was without any sense or irony or sarcasm is worthy of death.

    https://www.amazon.com/We-Meant-Well-American-Project/dp/0805096817

    It's a pity that the "Hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people were the only parts of concern when he was a participant in the murder of 2 million plus of them

    , @Abe

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity — I am quite sure he meant well — but his influence was deeply malign.
     
    Friends, deplorables, countrymen- don’t jump all over me if this is not to the rigor of a peer-revived paper (or even a short hot-take for QUILLETE), but anyone else remember public intellectual Peter Singer, famous for arguing animals should have the same rights as people and that no resources should be spent on keeping the decrepit old alive?- basically resulting in him having to special plead in an interview why he shouldn’t euthanize his aged mother. Possibly not a direct disciple, but choosing the welfare (and life) of some Borneo orangutan over his own parent seems just the logical, non-speciesist extension of Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” argument.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    A Theory of Justice” is an unbelievably stupid book.
     
    I'll confess I've never read Rawls' in the original. But unless I misunderstand his theory, I don't think it's stupid or malign.

    His theory is that the best we can do to define "fairness" objectively is by reference to the universal (and perhaps biologically programmed) value of reciprocity -- i.e., to treat others as you would expect them to treat you.

    In other words, what's fair is what you would agree to "if the shoe were on the other foot." So a fair game/system is where the players agree to the rules before they know which side they will be on.

    The theory has obvious practical limitations. But it's basically just utilitarianism. For example, if people know there will be more and better stuff in their system if they allow individuals to be incentivized with profit, they will build those rules into their "fair" system even before they know who will benefit most. Because those rules will benefit all the players that they might be.

    I think people are mostly misunderstanding Rawls if they think his theory calls for radical levelling.
  43. @BB753
    You cannot be woke and smart at the same time unless you're faking one quality or both at the same time.

    This reminds me of an observation they used to make in Soviet-dominated Poland:

    “You can be intelligent, you can be sincere, or you can be a Communist. In fact, you can be any two, but not all three.”

    Replace Communist with Woke.

    • Agree: Bubba, Kronos
    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    I know a lot of people who are all three.

    Two causes: (1) ideological/experiential cocooning facilitated/exacerbated by new social media (2) reaction to ethos of nonjudgmentalism in all things (glorified cheap grace) under which they were raised (this is UMC wide, if anything worse among "conservatives"*). They make inane judgments because they have no practce making any judgments at all.

    * - example among Jews:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/moralistic-therapeutic-judaism/
  44. @Harry Baldwin
    This reminds me of an observation they used to make in Soviet-dominated Poland:

    "You can be intelligent, you can be sincere, or you can be a Communist. In fact, you can be any two, but not all three."

    Replace Communist with Woke.

    I know a lot of people who are all three.

    Two causes: (1) ideological/experiential cocooning facilitated/exacerbated by new social media (2) reaction to ethos of nonjudgmentalism in all things (glorified cheap grace) under which they were raised (this is UMC wide, if anything worse among “conservatives”*). They make inane judgments because they have no practce making any judgments at all.

    * – example among Jews:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/moralistic-therapeutic-judaism/

  45. @Coemgen
    We have to separate "thinkers" from "politicians." "Thinkers" need to be smart to gain notoriety but "politicians" only need to be successfully manipulative. Is there really any "woke thinker" or is "wokeness" strictly politics?

    Is there really any “woke thinker” or is “wokeness” strictly politics?

    The latter and it is far worse than politics.

    The term “woke thinker” is a participation trophy for morons.

  46. Influential Woke Thinkers

    I think you misspelled “Ewok”.

    Or am I thinking Eloi? Or Ents?

    Ewoks and Ents are brown, aren’t they? Eloi seem more white:

    But aren’t we Morlocks?

  47. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    “Woke” is such an extreme term that even yesterday’s liberals don’t qualify anymore; therefore, most self-identified wokists are either imbeciles or liars. The phenomenon may be an example of shooting past the mark and getting diminishing returns as a result.

    Example: extremely religious American whites have IQs of around 98 – 99. Agnostics are around 105 – 106. But full-blown atheists overshoot the mark and experience diminishing returns. Their IQs are generally in the 103 – 104 range. I wonder if the same is true here. Stephen Jay Gould, although obnoxious (possibly worse), had a belief system lots of smart, argumentative white guys on the dissident right today would have had if they had come of age in the 1970s instead of the 1990s. However, the difference between then and now is that the goal posts have moved so far that even those types can’t keep up and are left behind as a result. Diminishing returns. Now, most woke artists are either rubes or sociopaths.

    Example: All those fake male feminists who exploited #metoo as an opportunity to fleece gullible social media users. I still can’t get over that male feminist guy who publicly admitted to abusing women, then used the resultant fame to sell woke T-shirts to feminists. He then fired his female employees when they found out and confronted him, then promptly went back to selling feminist T-shirts. Lol.

    Years ago, I remember seeing a liberal, well-spoken Bill Press of CNN Crossfire fame (har har) complaining at the end of his show about Time Magazine changing “Man of the Year” to “Person of the Year”. He thought it was PC. Today, an innocuous comment like that might get him a nice two minute segment of hate on Twitter. So, younger smart white guys like Bill Press stop saying things like that, and, eventually, they stop identifying with people who do that sort of thing in the first place. They fall out of politics or end up posting all day on Unz.

  48. @Anonymous

    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way.
     
    The biggest obstacle to thought is taboo than dogma. While dogmas can breed taboos, some taboos take on a life of its own and define the dogma. It's the difference between Christian dogma and Christian purism of the nuttiest kind.
    Dwight MacDonald was once a Trotskyite and remained a leftist intellectual all his life. But he lived in a democratic free world when there were fewer emotion-driven taboos in arts and culture. So, he freely spoke about everything. He could praise Soviet film-makers and also D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION. He sympathized with blacks, but blacks were not sacred objects back then. Neither were Jews.

    But PC has hardened taboos to the point where Jews, blacks, and homos are not merely favored but sacrosanct. And 'racism' isn't merely wrong but the greatest evil of all time. And even the slightest show of white identity or interest is an abomination.

    Such taboos turn people into either stone-hard true believers or weak-kneed craven cowards. PC dogmatist see the world in terms of total good and total evil. And those who don't agree dare not say anything because the power of taboo is so strong that any dissenter could be destroyed. These taboos have taken over the culture.

    When even JK Rowling is attacked for saying the obvious about sexes, the power of taboos are out of control.

    The power of taboos not only destroyed leftist thinking -- only rigid robots are promoted -- but rightist thinking because the sheer cowardice of 'conservatives' is to avoid violating the taboos. Taboo-driven rage turned 'leftist' thinking into idiocy, and taboo-driven cowardice turned 'rightist' thinking into endless appeasement.

    National Review was far more interesting when there was still space in the US for discourse on race and ethnicity. But ever since it began to cower before Jewish Power and Taboos, it's been of timidity and pussy-footing. Conservatism is now dorky Lowry and Charlie Kirk. What is the new 'right'? 'Gay marriage' is a 'conservative value'.

    Really excellent stuff. Thanks. I will be re-reading that a number of times for sure.

    I think cultural background is a factor, too. I attribute at least some of the ways that I am “smart” to the fact that the dominant cultural influence in my family comes from countless generations of poor southern Italians. A prominent cultural trait of poor southern Italians is deep mistrust of government, eggheads, elites, etc. That ethnic tribal influence acts as a sort of armor against contemporary ideological-political tribal pressures. At least I like to think so.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/chef-with-italian-pizza-picture-id178368198?k=6&m=178368198&s=612x612&w=0&h=axLUV9Py8p5eaV2e6vSHX4WuMc1yUy2lPHRAZt1npQ4=

    Unfortunately, it’s likely the cultural stupidity of my people stem from centuries of interbred fanaticism and obsessiveness. That hanging a witch was more humane than simply burning one is only a sign of marginal improvement. Typically if people lose their collective minds during a “moral panic” during US history (Salem Witch Trials, Prohibition, Wokeness) it’s basically starts with New England Wasps.

    https://youtu.be/ALmIsdiVajo
  49. @Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.
     
    What was malign about Rawls?

    What was malign about Rawls?

    Your good thing is about to come to an end.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    This is not exactly "intellectual," but Gil Scott Heron -- the black dude who always sounded to me like Lou Rawls with an attitude -- was one lefty who seemed to have some wit and sense lurking amid the anger and resentment.
  50. @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    “I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then. There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over.”

    Thank you for NOTICING. I would say, however, that each niche market, whether it be business owners or Internet stars or millennials or young environmentalists, has their own leaders–people that you and I would give a Spockbrow to.

    Now, are today’s normies even remotely interested in the Nietzsche’s, Stoddard’s, Foucault’s, Said’s, Gould’s, West’s, or Yarvin’s or their predecessors on the left and on the right?

    Perhaps the pissing match regarding the positions taken by these intellectual heavyweights is the fodder for the Alt Right and leftist intelligentsia.

  51. So many malign intellectuals. (I won’t address “smart” but malign is easy). The post-Modern destruction of the belief in objective reality: Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Stanley Fish, Peter Singer. The anti-psychiatry movement of the 1970’s and its role in the vast harm of de-institutionalization: Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing.

  52. @anonwatcher
    If you think that YouTubers are/will have a growing effect on public discourse, then there seems to be a growing class of smarter woke thinkers (talkers?). ContraPoints, Shaun, PhilosophyTube, Destiny, etc. -- all affiliated with the "BreadTube" movement. Though, interestingly, it's clear the smartest of them - definitely ContraPoints and Destiny - are not down the line woke, much to chagrin of parts of their fanbases.

    YouTube vloggers do have an outsized influence on public discourse, not because of the medium, but because they offered an alternative to the woke party line.

    The joke that is “breadtube” has no audience and never will. Warmed-over Marxism isn’t a scarce commodity. The superpower of the Megaphone is to force memes and raise mediocrity to popular relevance and official legitimacy; YouTube has no competitive advantage over the prestige press as a medium for that.

  53. @Steve Sailer
    Miranda took Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton to read on the beach on vacation, where he got the idea for his magnum opus.

    He's a bright guy, although that's by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume.

    “He’s a bright guy, although that’s by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You occasionally have something of interest to say. Wait until then to comment.

    You are becoming annoying with the constant trolling. The same lame sarcasm over and over.
  54. During the Cultural Revo, were there any Red Guards who were thinkers?

    Were there any smart thinkers among the Khmer Rouge?

    Isn’t Wokeness implicitly anti-thought?

    • Agree: Bubba
    • Replies: @Miguel Madeira
    "During the Cultural Revo, were there any Red Guards who were thinkers? "

    Yang Xiguang, main ideologue of the Sheng-wu-lien ("Hunan Provincial Proletarian Revolutionary Great Alliance Committee")?
  55. @Anonymous

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart.
     
    We are not talking of mere intelligence. We are talking about creative, original, visionary, and/or radical thinking. Most hokey-wokey stuff is just mantras and chants, even among high IQ people.

    But the problem isn't only PC but pop culture, shallow sensibility, and lack of immersive mindset.
    Take Susan Sontag. She grew up at a time when intellectuals spent long hours reading serious books on philosophy and highbrow novels. They didn't have TV and pop culture hadn't yet taken over. So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture.

    But in the age of pop culture, it's more about attitude. Also, it's considered hip to multi-task. So, one could be reading a serious book, have the TV on, check internet so often, and etc. Take Tarantino. He grew up prior to internet but the multi-sensibility mind is already there. He can't tell the difference between art film and kung fu films. There's a glibness and smugness. Hipster bluster than deep immersion into anything.

    Today's ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes. Also, there is a drug-sensibility about it. People vape on 'outrage' like on drugs. It's for instant highs.

    Foucault, Sontag, Kael, Said, Mailer, and etc were often anti-conservative and anti-bourgeois, but what they all had in common was they grew up in a bourgeois intellectual culture of respectability and high art and serious ideas. So, even as they made trouble, they were grounded in deep culture. But since then, the core sensibility of even the educated has been pop culture and pop attitudes.

    I mean, just how did HAMILTON become such a sensation among the elites? Dumb dumb world. It doesn't matter how smart you are in IQ. If you're dumb in mindset, you won't think. It's like Mao's China had lots of smart people but their minds were set on quoting from the Little Red Book. Now, even elites grow up to Rap as poetry.

    Woke isn't just about ideology. It's about culture as even pop songs and advertising are part of idol-driven ideology. Woke is a Choke on thought.

    “So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture.”

    We still do. It’s just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.

    “Today’s ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes.”

    What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.

    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.
     
    I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the "woke" mindset.

    And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don't you?

    And so do I. And so do lots of people here.

    Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong.

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?

    Even a guy like Abbie Hoffman was interesting and had something to say!

    Today's "woke" leftists...(yawn).

    , @Anonymous

    We still do. It's just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.
     
    Yeah, when you're not turning your hair green, putting on pussy costumes, getting tattoos and piercing, reading Harry Potter, damning past literature as 'racist, patriarchal, etc', praising Tahanasi Coates as genius, using tv commercials to push 'gay daddies', spinning theories about 50 genders, and etc.

    The current state of art world says it all.

    Now, I don't dump on PC as defense of conservative culture as it hardly exists. American 'conservatism' is idiocy pure and simple.
  56. Good God ten years ago one of these sinister articles in the lancet would have been unthinkable…

  57. @Altai
    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of “woke” UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions — they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this “They must be smart to be making that much”: a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully “woke,” even to be good at faking being truly “woke,” no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor

    But to be fully “woke,” even to be good at faking being truly “woke,” no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.
     
    I guess the question would be, could a sociopath keep a straight face while leading a family into great danger under all sorts of crazy pretenses. I'm afraid he could. And if he happened to be high IQ, he might just become a postmodernist.
    , @vhrm
    with all due respect, your daughter got into a minor scrape with her roommate. Some paper lanterns were destroyed and possibly a suitcase tipped over on someone. (i don't remember the details, but read up on it when you mentioned it previously)

    Describing what happened as "brutally attacked" is an example of what the wokes do:
    exaggerate the victimization to get people to feel sorry for them and shut down argument.

    And in some of the articles (or their comments) you were calling for the other girl to get kicked off campus and/or even expelled.

    This combination makes it hard for me to tell if you really have issue with the UCLA arbitrary woke justice system or just that your daughter is receiving it instead of dishing it out.
    , @Anonymous

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of “woke” UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.
     
    What was behind the attack? Who attacked her?
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Don't confuse expertise- or even genius, in the chosen field with cognitive ability & emotional-moral maturity. Critical thinking, I'm talking about this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking


    Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

     

    With regard to human condition, or even more complex social & cultural realities, many high level scientists were basically - morons, fachidioten.

    In that sorry case of your daughter's traumatic experience, university bureaucrats are even less- they are not fachidiots. They're simply good, old fashioned - idiots.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
  58. What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.

    This has to be a bot of some sort.

  59. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Judith Butler has been a huge influence on wokery and is still alive and working. She’s nuts, but seems about as smart as Foucault et al. If you want a lucid summary of her work, I would suggest Sarah Salih’s book.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Judith Butler is 63 and her big books were in 1990 and 1993. So she's a First Wave Political Correctness thinker. Who are the big guns of the Second Wave of Political Correctness.
  60. Maybe the economists Piketty or Saez, they are sure investing a lot in tearing down the free market and promoting communism. But I don’t know if they have real reach. Tyler Cowen has been extremely critical (in his measured way) about them, and he’s not the only one. There are mild hints the pendulum (think Poe) is swinging straight at the Woke and will hit them square on in November.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Piketty and Saez are center-left types who want taxes on the rich and big corporations back to the Clinton era levels. Seems like a good idea to me.
  61. @Corvinus
    "So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture."

    We still do. It's just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.

    "Today’s ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes."

    What is "today's ideology"? I never heard of it before.

    Corvinus wrote:

    What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.

    I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the “woke” mindset.

    And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don’t you?

    And so do I. And so do lots of people here.

    Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong.

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?

    Even a guy like Abbie Hoffman was interesting and had something to say!

    Today’s “woke” leftists…(yawn).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?
     
    Perhaps Covinus considers her his intellectual superior. Perhaps she is. He is and idiot.
    , @Corvinus
    "I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the “woke” mindset."

    According to Who/Whom? Are today's normies supportive or opposed to "wokeness", or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?

    "And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don’t you?"

    Respect and agree with wholeheartedly or in part are two separate things.

    "Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong."

    Wrong, according to their detractors.

    "Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?"

    I read through it all. The point I am making is that there seems to be an intellectual pissing match between the Alt Right and leftists. Both sides assume Normies have a modicum of understanding the champions of thought they trot out and put on a pedestal. I mean, how many American whites could even explain the main ideas offered by Said, Chomsky, Gould, Boyd, Stoddard, Nietzsche, Yarvin, Sailer, Derbyshire, Vox Day, Molyneaux, and company? To what extent are these individuals even on the radar screen of Normies?

    "Today’s “woke” leftists…(yawn)."

    Again, according to Who/Whom?

  62. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    It's a trick question. If any of these woke people were actually, genuinely "smart," then they wouldn't be "woke". No actual smart person can tolerate woke impersonations of thought for more than a few seconds.

    Likewise, if somebody is truly "woke" then by definition they are not, and cannot be, a genuine intellectual.

    It’s a trick question. If any of these woke people were actually, genuinely “smart,” then they wouldn’t be “woke”. No actual smart person can tolerate woke impersonations of thought for more than a few seconds.

    Likewise, if somebody is truly “woke” then by definition they are not, and cannot be, a genuine intellectual.

    That is the best answer.

    Especially if one agrees that there is such a thing as truth and that some thinking is better than others. “Wokeness” stands in opposition to this very idea. It is opposed to Reason.

  63. Hebert Marcuse was pretty smart before he started hanging out with Angela Davis. According to Prof. Paul Gottfried, Marcuse knew everything about Hegel. I can’t imagine TNC reading Hegel in the original German.

    • Replies: @Ian M.

    I can’t imagine TNC reading Hegel in the original German.
     
    Isn't the real question whether TNC has ever even heard of Hegel?
  64. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Those would be your late night network “comedy” hosts, cringe twerps like Seth Myers*. They dispense wisdom to the progressive flock nightly. Their writers have these hosts repeat things from political websites but deliver the content with a funny face so their dumb audience thinks they’ve told a joke; side bonus: the audience gets to feel smart because they vaguely recognize a name. That constitutes intellectualism for the left these days, and millions tune in nightly to get their fix.

    *Seriously, watch the guy’s show. He has an Orwellian segment called “A Closer Look”, written for him by other people of course, where he pretends to be an expert on essentially everything. He stares into the camera, calls everyone he doesn’t like a “liar” and uses “Trump supporter” as code for “white”. IIRC, the show then switches to a black woman sporting an afro to deliver the latest woke “jokes”. Not funny. #captaintrytoohard. All of these white male leftists are like this. Kimmel has a Mexican sidekick. Colbert has a black guy band leader named Jon Batiste. I’ve speculated before that some of this wokeness comes from white guys afraid for their jobs as the tide of diversity rises. I think we see that here. Until recently, every one of these late night shows were hosted by white men. I think they’re pandering so they don’t get replaced.

  65. The Woke don’t like hierarchies, so they have an inbuilt mechanism for not achieving anything which might make them higher than someone else. If one of them forgets this and tries too hard at thinking, then the mob will bat them down.

    The whole thing ends up as a constantly burbling grey sludge of resentment.

  66. @cthulhu
    Maybe the economists Piketty or Saez, they are sure investing a lot in tearing down the free market and promoting communism. But I don’t know if they have real reach. Tyler Cowen has been extremely critical (in his measured way) about them, and he’s not the only one. There are mild hints the pendulum (think Poe) is swinging straight at the Woke and will hit them square on in November.

    Piketty and Saez are center-left types who want taxes on the rich and big corporations back to the Clinton era levels. Seems like a good idea to me.

    • Replies: @cthulhu


    Piketty and Saez are center-left types who want taxes on the rich and big corporations back to the Clinton era levels. Seems like a good idea to me.

     

    Piketty in particular is full-bore communist; Saez is full-bore socialist. And they both drastically cherry-pick their data.
  67. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "So, they immersed themselves in ideas and art and culture."

    We still do. It's just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.

    "Today’s ideology is a jumble of ideas, idols, memes."

    What is "today's ideology"? I never heard of it before.

    We still do. It’s just in a different way, one that you may oppose or feel threatened by.

    Yeah, when you’re not turning your hair green, putting on pussy costumes, getting tattoos and piercing, reading Harry Potter, damning past literature as ‘racist, patriarchal, etc’, praising Tahanasi Coates as genius, using tv commercials to push ‘gay daddies’, spinning theories about 50 genders, and etc.

    The current state of art world says it all.

    Now, I don’t dump on PC as defense of conservative culture as it hardly exists. American ‘conservatism’ is idiocy pure and simple.

    • Agree: BB753
  68. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.
     
    I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the "woke" mindset.

    And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don't you?

    And so do I. And so do lots of people here.

    Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong.

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?

    Even a guy like Abbie Hoffman was interesting and had something to say!

    Today's "woke" leftists...(yawn).

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?

    Perhaps Covinus considers her his intellectual superior. Perhaps she is. He is and idiot.

  69. @PhysicistDave
    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.
     
    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of "woke" UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions -- they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this "They must be smart to be making that much": a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully "woke," even to be good at faking being truly "woke," no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    But to be fully “woke,” even to be good at faking being truly “woke,” no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    I guess the question would be, could a sociopath keep a straight face while leading a family into great danger under all sorts of crazy pretenses. I’m afraid he could. And if he happened to be high IQ, he might just become a postmodernist.

  70. @Thursday
    Judith Butler has been a huge influence on wokery and is still alive and working. She’s nuts, but seems about as smart as Foucault et al. If you want a lucid summary of her work, I would suggest Sarah Salih’s book.

    Judith Butler is 63 and her big books were in 1990 and 1993. So she’s a First Wave Political Correctness thinker. Who are the big guns of the Second Wave of Political Correctness.

  71. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    You are right, there are very few.

    Maybe Loïc Wacquant, Mike Davis?

  72. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    I

    Jürgen Habermas is still alive. He out-faucauled Foucault. In China there re thousands of serious Habermas scholars – and bright ones too. Just how woke they are is something entirely different.

    II

    I think in the direction of Altai in comment No. 2 above. The battle is won. What we see is now what happens at times, if battles are won – a deep relaxation. People enjoy the peace-dividend of the intellectual battles on the left but – this is what Georg Wilhelm Friedrich – – – Hegel understood – this kind of relaxation is corrupting for the masters (= dialectics of the servant and the master).

    So in this state of corruption, the masters still rule, but they lose their bite and along comes: – The Codling of the American Mind (Haidt/Lukianoff) – we see now the intellectually deteriorating left = the Regressive Left (Dave Rubin).

    The winners of the great battles of the Sixties and Seventies are still dominating the public sphere but they more and more trade in their intellectual edge, their curiousness, their ability to make distinctions altogether as tools of the past, which would be in their way now, since things like that would now stand between them and their – huge (!) woke following, which is anti-intellectual and pro-feeling instead.

    Lots of leftists are still bright, but that’s in part, why they act woke – it now makes strategically more sense to act as Big Feelers than to pubicly act as Big Thinkers. Thing is: This strategy has made the left (publicly!) so plain out dumb already, that they risk losing their self-esteem. And that is a serious threat already.

    Also once leftist public figures now turn away from the leftist mainstream and/or publicly oppose it – see Pinker, Peterson, Paglia, Haidt – Lilla (?), Thilo Sarrazin, David Goodhart, Macron (?), Matteo Salvini, Danish Islam- and immigration critic and (!) President Mette Frederiksen…

    • Thanks: iffen
  73. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Wokeness doesn’t really have any heavyweight intellectual leaders because it’s the opposite of intellectual.

    It is just a set of subjective, alogical preferences. In particular: Male/straight/white/western = Bad; Female/queer/POC/non-western = Good.

    You simply don’t need deep intellectual insights or leaders to chant mantras. Instead, wokeness spreads by shouting louder and more often, and by silencing the opposition. Not by persuasion and intellectual philosophizing.

    The closest thing to Woke intellectualism might be those academics who coin jargon based on talking about their own feelings. Like the woman who coined the term “white privilege” based on her imagining that she had a “magical backpack” (or whatever) full of such stuff.

    It’s almost too lame to count as an ideology, much less an intellectual movement.

    In short, it’s only “leaders” are morons on Twitter and hacks at the NYT and Vox. Serious intellectuals are entirely superfluous.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Wokeness doesn’t really have any heavyweight intellectual leaders because it’s the opposite of intellectual.
     
    Woke seems to mean where your main commitment is to the cause than the truth.

    So, a thinker/writer can be liberal-leaning or left-leaning but still not be 'woke'. He could be trying to find the truth, albeit with liberal bias. Or he could be making a rational and factual argument for his liberal values. In contrast, Woke thinking puts passion/commitment before everything. Or, its theory is so limited to ONE particular idea that it is incapable of seeing the world outside that mental box.

    Gladwell is often wrong, but he thinks he's thinking and lays out his case. So, he's not 'woke'. Neither is Florida with the 'creative class' or Acemoglu with his theory of good governance. They leave out certain key factors due to PC, bias, or dogmatism, but they still believe themselves to be thinking through what they present.

    In contrast, wokesters believe they know what is and must be because of identity, passion, or radical narrowness of their worldview. Because they don't think, they easily fall under the sway of certain militant ideas. They think it's new and original when it may be trite.
    Take 'intersectionality'. This is the oldest idea in the world. Uniting on common interests against the enemy. Nixon understood when he moved toward Red China against the USSR. One bunch of Europeans sometimes sided with Tartars or Turks against other Europeans. Romans made pacts with certain Germanic barbarians against other Germanic barbarians. And yet, just by tagging a new label on it -- 'intersectional' --, it's hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
  74. @prime noticer
    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way. their numbers are legion, so maybe you can't point to any one or two particular leaders, but they have bee wildly successful, don't you think? they're on the verge of convincing western europeans, the most dominant humans who ever lived, to voluntarily give up their countries, and eventually, even their existence.

    my vote is for the prosecutors of Cultural Marxism, whoever they may be. largely Jewish, influential perhaps beyond comprehension. never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds.

    “never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds”

    Perhaps not in a self negating sense, but in a destructive sense Marx and Freud surely did the same thing, with much greater damage in Marx’s case. Mind viruses seem to be a speciality.

  75. @PhysicistDave
    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.
     
    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of "woke" UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions -- they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this "They must be smart to be making that much": a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully "woke," even to be good at faking being truly "woke," no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    with all due respect, your daughter got into a minor scrape with her roommate. Some paper lanterns were destroyed and possibly a suitcase tipped over on someone. (i don’t remember the details, but read up on it when you mentioned it previously)

    Describing what happened as “brutally attacked” is an example of what the wokes do:
    exaggerate the victimization to get people to feel sorry for them and shut down argument.

    And in some of the articles (or their comments) you were calling for the other girl to get kicked off campus and/or even expelled.

    This combination makes it hard for me to tell if you really have issue with the UCLA arbitrary woke justice system or just that your daughter is receiving it instead of dishing it out.

  76. Are There Any Influential Woke Thinkers Who Are Smart?

    No.

  77. There are many super smart academics who do a dissertation in some technical or scholarly area and then ‘trade in’ their prestige (genuinely won) for woke credentials in social media. An example might be someone like Jason Stanley at Princeton. You don’t get tenure in the Princeton philosophy department without a sky high IQ. But in the last few years the ‘pull’ of idiotic woke media, interacting with previously existing tendencies to ‘social justice’ etc, creates monstrosities like his recent book on fascism.

    This phenomenon happens at lower levels too – I’ve seen multiple fairly interesting minds destroyed by twitter and the woke peer pressure that comes with it.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
  78. • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Professor Appiah is a bright guy. I always think it's funny that it has been nominally more useful to his career that one of his grandfathers was a Nigerian aristocrat while everybody tries to ignore that his maternal grandfather, Sir Stafford Cripps, was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1947-1949 to His Majesty King George VI.
    , @blank-misgivings
    Appiah isn't strictly 'woke'. He's more like Martha Nussbaum - an old school Liberal. If you read his stuff on 'cosmopolitanism' it comes across as old school liberal universalism rather than woke 'standpoint epistemology'. It's actually rather anti-identitarian - the (labored and implausible) message being that every religion and ethnic cosmology has resonances that can be worked up into universally shared ethics, etc.
  79. Ryan Murphy influenced Americans’ sexual mores.

  80. @Ali Choudhury
    Kwame Anthony Appiah.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d9678e0-ab1b-11e8-89a1-e5de165fa619

    Professor Appiah is a bright guy. I always think it’s funny that it has been nominally more useful to his career that one of his grandfathers was a Nigerian aristocrat while everybody tries to ignore that his maternal grandfather, Sir Stafford Cripps, was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1947-1949 to His Majesty King George VI.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Professor Appiah is a bright guy"

    Cripps family on one side, Ghanaian Ashanti aristocracy on the other. I said Ashantis seemed to be bright like Igbos.

    His dad Joe "was born in Kumasi to Nana James W.K. Appiah and Nana Adwoa Akyaa, members of the Ashanti imperial aristocracy ".
  81. @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    “Beatles” and “Stones” were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.

    The social engineers who brought you “the Beatles” have since moved on to higher vistas, bringing you “gay marriage” and 51 genders, is all.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    “Beatles” and “Stones” were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.
     
    As were Bach, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, and all those other composers surviving on sinecures. Puppets of the Esterhazys!

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra's early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank's entire career was a fraud. Why anybody listens to him... what am I saying? Nobody listens to him anymore.
  82. @Corvinus
    "He’s a bright guy, although that’s by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume."

    According to Who/Whom?

    You occasionally have something of interest to say. Wait until then to comment.

    You are becoming annoying with the constant trolling. The same lame sarcasm over and over.

    • Agree: Dissident
  83. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    Seems to me that movies have remained less fractured than music. Though everything is available, on tap 24/7 these days. Every genre of music, every movie, every book if you like books. Also every video game. And porn.

    In some ways people are less theoretical than they used to be. Knowledge is easier to come by. People are harder to bamboozle, because you can google and find exceptions and counter-arguments. A lot of bad theories used to find more currency because people were more naive. There are still bad theories but they have to be pushed hard.

    It feels like we are in decline.

  84. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    It’s a great question. There aren’t any “big brains” behind the contemporary wokeness. They’re bureaucrats.

    The countercultural, anti-bourgeois movement of the 1960s needed intellectuals to challenge the bourgeois order. Now that the Left had succeeded in creating the new, neo-Marxist “establishment,” and now that that establishment is in power, it only needs mere functionaries to carry out its agenda.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  85. @Joe, Averaged
    W.E.B. DuBois

    Certainly an intellectual, hardly even woke-“adjacent”.

  86. Jared Diamond is probably smart. As is Soros. Ezra Klein could be smart too.

    Perhaps the problem is that there are scarcely any famous or influential humanities professors today.

  87. @Whiskey
    Men care about theory. Women care about fame whoring.

    “Men care about theory. Women care about fame whoring”

    That’s not terribly far from Jordan Henderson’s “Men test Ideas, Women test men.”

  88. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "What was malign about Rawls?"

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity -- I am quite sure he meant well -- but his influence was deeply malign.

    "A Theory of Justice" is an unbelievably stupid book. It is cretinous, naive, and ignorant of human beings as a species. Its fundamental premise has absolutely no relation to human life as lived by humans. To give you an idea, it's even stupider than Plato's Republic. Nobody actually believes Plato, but still it's a fun and healthy exercise.

    The problem is, "A Theory of Justice" used to be required reading in several departments at Harvard -- so its insidious influence on young, impressionable, yet pathologically ambitious minds, has introduced all kinds of neurotoxins into our public discourse at the Halls of Power level. People who would never believe Plato, and would be right, were induced to believing Rawls.

    "They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!"

    “They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!””

    “We meant well” is the title of a Chimp Diplomat- Peter van Buren, book (apologia) about the US slaughter in Iraq.

    That this was without any sense or irony or sarcasm is worthy of death.

    It’s a pity that the “Hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people were the only parts of concern when he was a participant in the murder of 2 million plus of them

  89. @Ali Choudhury
    Kwame Anthony Appiah.

    https://www.ft.com/content/7d9678e0-ab1b-11e8-89a1-e5de165fa619

    Appiah isn’t strictly ‘woke’. He’s more like Martha Nussbaum – an old school Liberal. If you read his stuff on ‘cosmopolitanism’ it comes across as old school liberal universalism rather than woke ‘standpoint epistemology’. It’s actually rather anti-identitarian – the (labored and implausible) message being that every religion and ethnic cosmology has resonances that can be worked up into universally shared ethics, etc.

  90. @Reg Cæsar

    What was malign about Rawls?
     
    Your good thing is about to come to an end.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1PhOhJOasFY

    This is not exactly “intellectual,” but Gil Scott Heron — the black dude who always sounded to me like Lou Rawls with an attitude — was one lefty who seemed to have some wit and sense lurking amid the anger and resentment.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    His "What's the Word From Johannesburg" was one of the worst things I ever heard on those midnight concert shows of the '70s. Not a career I wanted to follow.
    , @ben tillman
    Pieces of a Man, sure. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised -- That's right, any real revolution will be concealed.
  91. @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    There are no leaders in the Age of Aquarius. The Age of The Ram (Aries) was the emergence of Monotheisim, Pisces, the fish, was the Christ Consciousness, the IDEA of God swimming through our minds (water is consciousness in the ancient paradigm), and in the New Age of The Water Carrier we will carry each our own consciousness.

  92. Skimming the comments I am seeing rough consensus that they don’t have any more Foucaults because they no longer need them, as they have bureaucrats (and Diversity Officers in every major corporation) instead.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    You could reformulate this observation of yours also thus: The influence of people like De Man, Foucault and - - - Marx etc. does not need actual successors, because the very nature of ideas is that they differ from humans in that they don't die when their creators die. Steve Sailer's post above suffers from one or two of this kind of not quite right presuppositions.
  93. The people they put out in TV and and publications like The Atlantic are not really smart, but they tend to be minorities and can repeat the woke catechism endlessly. It’s the editors and producers that keep putting them front and center that we should really keep our eye on – the Jeff Zuckers, Jeffrey Goldbergs, Ezra Kleins, and so on that are the real drivers of the message.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    Agree. These minorities are just hired lackeys of the Jewish puppeteers that continue to control the media narrative. The blacks are truly wedded to the narrative, but the woke asian journalists would be spouting something different if something else were advantageous to their careers.
  94. @Steve Sailer
    Professor Appiah is a bright guy. I always think it's funny that it has been nominally more useful to his career that one of his grandfathers was a Nigerian aristocrat while everybody tries to ignore that his maternal grandfather, Sir Stafford Cripps, was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1947-1949 to His Majesty King George VI.

    “Professor Appiah is a bright guy”

    Cripps family on one side, Ghanaian Ashanti aristocracy on the other. I said Ashantis seemed to be bright like Igbos.

    His dad Joe “was born in Kumasi to Nana James W.K. Appiah and Nana Adwoa Akyaa, members of the Ashanti imperial aristocracy “.

  95. @Arclight
    The people they put out in TV and and publications like The Atlantic are not really smart, but they tend to be minorities and can repeat the woke catechism endlessly. It's the editors and producers that keep putting them front and center that we should really keep our eye on - the Jeff Zuckers, Jeffrey Goldbergs, Ezra Kleins, and so on that are the real drivers of the message.

    Agree. These minorities are just hired lackeys of the Jewish puppeteers that continue to control the media narrative. The blacks are truly wedded to the narrative, but the woke asian journalists would be spouting something different if something else were advantageous to their careers.

  96. @JimDandy
    Really excellent stuff. Thanks. I will be re-reading that a number of times for sure.

    I think cultural background is a factor, too. I attribute at least some of the ways that I am "smart" to the fact that the dominant cultural influence in my family comes from countless generations of poor southern Italians. A prominent cultural trait of poor southern Italians is deep mistrust of government, eggheads, elites, etc. That ethnic tribal influence acts as a sort of armor against contemporary ideological-political tribal pressures. At least I like to think so.

    https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/chef-with-italian-pizza-picture-id178368198?k=6&m=178368198&s=612×612&w=0&h=axLUV9Py8p5eaV2e6vSHX4WuMc1yUy2lPHRAZt1npQ4=

    Unfortunately, it’s likely the cultural stupidity of my people stem from centuries of interbred fanaticism and obsessiveness. That hanging a witch was more humane than simply burning one is only a sign of marginal improvement. Typically if people lose their collective minds during a “moral panic” during US history (Salem Witch Trials, Prohibition, Wokeness) it’s basically starts with New England Wasps.

    • Agree: JimDandy
  97. Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion. You don’t need anybody smart to reinforce your religious beliefs. All you need is priests, whose job is to keep telling you what you must believe, and the Inquisition, whose job is to kill heretics. Physical death of heretics is seldom necessary: social and professional death, followed by unpersoning, are sufficient in most cases.

    Sacred relics, such as photographs of Emmett Till, help people to believe.

    • Replies: @anon
    Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion cult

    FIFY

    Physical death of heretics is seldom necessary: social and professional death, followed by unpersoning, are sufficient in most cases.

    Exactly.

    Sacred relics, such as photographs of Emmett Till, help people to believe.

    Don't forget St. Trayvon!
    , @Ozymandias
    "Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion."

    All religions require faith. The most faithful will believe when all evidence points to the contrary. And they will be revered for that.
  98. Wokesters for the most part are dumb as door knobs and are just useful idiots, esp. the females, the blacks and the LGBTQ crowd who seem to make up the majority of the wokeness. But those who gave them the platform to air their grievances — the (((newspaper editors, social media CEOs, TV producers, George Soros et. al.))) are the smart ones because they have something to gain from wokeness, either to draw more eyeballs to their medium hence make more $, or to divide and conquer, or both.

  99. I would say that contemporary (American) public intellectuals are mostly media personalities who, now & then, write some worthless book. Actually, the time of public intellectuals -of all colors (J.P.Sartre, Ralph Dahrendorf, Herbert Marcuse, Umberto Eco, …) has passed. Even if we count their American counterparts like Harold Bloom or Camille Paglia.

    It’s TV & movie celebrities that matter more.

  100. @PhysicistDave
    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.
     
    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of "woke" UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions -- they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this "They must be smart to be making that much": a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully "woke," even to be good at faking being truly "woke," no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of “woke” UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    What was behind the attack? Who attacked her?

  101. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "What was malign about Rawls?"

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity -- I am quite sure he meant well -- but his influence was deeply malign.

    "A Theory of Justice" is an unbelievably stupid book. It is cretinous, naive, and ignorant of human beings as a species. Its fundamental premise has absolutely no relation to human life as lived by humans. To give you an idea, it's even stupider than Plato's Republic. Nobody actually believes Plato, but still it's a fun and healthy exercise.

    The problem is, "A Theory of Justice" used to be required reading in several departments at Harvard -- so its insidious influence on young, impressionable, yet pathologically ambitious minds, has introduced all kinds of neurotoxins into our public discourse at the Halls of Power level. People who would never believe Plato, and would be right, were induced to believing Rawls.

    "They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!"

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity — I am quite sure he meant well — but his influence was deeply malign.

    Friends, deplorables, countrymen- don’t jump all over me if this is not to the rigor of a peer-revived paper (or even a short hot-take for QUILLETE), but anyone else remember public intellectual Peter Singer, famous for arguing animals should have the same rights as people and that no resources should be spent on keeping the decrepit old alive?- basically resulting in him having to special plead in an interview why he shouldn’t euthanize his aged mother. Possibly not a direct disciple, but choosing the welfare (and life) of some Borneo orangutan over his own parent seems just the logical, non-speciesist extension of Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” argument.

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  102. I’m guessing Paul Krugman’s internet adventure has once and for all removed himself from any consideration regarding “public intellectuals”

  103. @Lot
    Piketty and Saez are center-left types who want taxes on the rich and big corporations back to the Clinton era levels. Seems like a good idea to me.

    Piketty and Saez are center-left types who want taxes on the rich and big corporations back to the Clinton era levels. Seems like a good idea to me.

    Piketty in particular is full-bore communist; Saez is full-bore socialist. And they both drastically cherry-pick their data.

  104. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "What was malign about Rawls?"

    Rawls himself was not a malignant entity -- I am quite sure he meant well -- but his influence was deeply malign.

    "A Theory of Justice" is an unbelievably stupid book. It is cretinous, naive, and ignorant of human beings as a species. Its fundamental premise has absolutely no relation to human life as lived by humans. To give you an idea, it's even stupider than Plato's Republic. Nobody actually believes Plato, but still it's a fun and healthy exercise.

    The problem is, "A Theory of Justice" used to be required reading in several departments at Harvard -- so its insidious influence on young, impressionable, yet pathologically ambitious minds, has introduced all kinds of neurotoxins into our public discourse at the Halls of Power level. People who would never believe Plato, and would be right, were induced to believing Rawls.

    "They will sit atop piles of skulls and poisoned ashes, and their excuse will be, But we meant well!"

    A Theory of Justice” is an unbelievably stupid book.

    I’ll confess I’ve never read Rawls’ in the original. But unless I misunderstand his theory, I don’t think it’s stupid or malign.

    His theory is that the best we can do to define “fairness” objectively is by reference to the universal (and perhaps biologically programmed) value of reciprocity — i.e., to treat others as you would expect them to treat you.

    In other words, what’s fair is what you would agree to “if the shoe were on the other foot.” So a fair game/system is where the players agree to the rules before they know which side they will be on.

    The theory has obvious practical limitations. But it’s basically just utilitarianism. For example, if people know there will be more and better stuff in their system if they allow individuals to be incentivized with profit, they will build those rules into their “fair” system even before they know who will benefit most. Because those rules will benefit all the players that they might be.

    I think people are mostly misunderstanding Rawls if they think his theory calls for radical levelling.

    • Replies: @Lot
    You’re reducing Rawls to nothing but the completely trivial point that “Lot’s views on morality should not center around what’s best for Lot to the exclusion of the wellbeing of others.”

    His method is inhuman. We’re not a bunch of basically identical gameplayers who need a set of rules to play by, but biological beings whose moral goodness is mostly an interaction of our genes, and the family environment that is likewise shaped by the behavior that is heavily the result of our family’s genes.

    Further, we know from experience that the sort of transfer payments to the unfortunate Rawls thinks we’d all want behind the veil of ignorance is dysgenic. The only way around this is to say “Well then we really wouldn’t want such transfers” and you again just make his whole method and system trivial and contentless.
    , @Desiderius
    His theory calls for radical leveling.

    In practice it reinvents privilege in ways that are primitive when they're not actively inimical to merit.

    As Lot has noted, the core error is imagining the individual (literally undivideable, akin to unique prime factorization) unit of humanity to be the single human organism itself, when in fact it is the chain of being across generations which is truly individual. Breaking that chain loses too much of fundamental value.

  105. Any failing enterprise loses the smart people first.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    We have a winner.
  106. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not My Economy
    In this case, I think we're using smart = bright, vs merely high IQ.

    No, there are none. This is a feature. The system prefers to "make" people who would never be organically popular. A corollary is how there are few to no truly talented musicians among mega pop stars today. Too risky.


    But regardless the woke left has people who get things done. A dumb guy who can execute a dumb plan will beat a really smart guy who can't execute his really smart plan.

    And a mid-wit (e.g. "sweet spot" IQ) who is unknowingly executing a pretty smart plan is of course going to wipe the floor with a really smart guy who can't execute his own really smart plan.

    In this case, I think we’re using smart = bright, vs merely high IQ.

    No, it’s more like “brilliant, original, deep, penetrating, and/or profound”. The neo-prophet of big think who lays down the template for new thought or offers many startling insights about society.

    The thing about Foucault is that even people who found him crazy, malicious, and totally wrong-headed nevertheless found many of his insights about power to be trenchant and useful. Same with Marx and Freud. Even if you reject their worldview and even if many of their ideas have been discredited, their approach to problems and the questions they raised inspired many for or against them. And even if Said way over-stated his case, there is more than a kernel of truth about Orientalism. With rise of neocon image of the Middle East via Hollywood and Zionist media — a new Orientalism — , it could be said that Said was prescient as well.

    Same is true of Heidegger. Even leftists who totally loathed his politics found his philosophy to be earth-shattering.

    One of the inspirations of thought is resistance and struggle. Marx lived in a capitalist world with many old structures still present. Freud too. There was the power and status quo for them to critique. But once communism prevailed in certain nations, Marxism went from interesting critique to mere state dogma. And what’s the use of Freudianism in our age when all is porny, even at Disney? What use is sexual critique in a pornocracy? Pampered thinkers go soft.

    Homo thinkers like Foucault were interesting because they had the Power to struggle against. Now that homocracy is the thing, homos are more about keeping their privilege than asking provocative questions. Same with Jews. There are many smart Jews like in the past, but their main concern now is controlling free speech to keep their power.

    Also, the rise of identity politics undermined much of leftist thought. Classic leftist thought was about going beyond obstacles of culture and identity to arrive at deeper bonds of humanity or higher values to guide us all. But once identity became central, ideas and thought took a backseat to ‘my people’ or just ‘myself’. When homos were in the closet, they had to think beyond homo-ness to appeal to all mankind. Now, homo thought wears high heels and just stares at the mirror and ‘me, me, me’. There was a time when black thought was about proving that they are as good as whites and rest of humanity. Now, it’s all about “We are better just becuz we be black.” It’s not about blacks being part of human justice but blackness = justice. It’s lazy, narcissistic, and nihilist. By this logic, OJ is innocent, and blacks are always right just for being black.
    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts. Even those who insist race isn’t real aren’t doing so for universal humanism but to specifically to protect the feelings of blacks and serve the anxiety of Jews as both groups indulge in self-aggrandizement. Identity Politics altered the mode of leftist thought from macro-theory to micro-sensitivity. It went from grand theory to shake the world to pipsqueak complaints to avoid being triggered.
    Woke = Squeak.

    • Agree: Abe, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts
     
    This is the "Regressive Left"- observation of Dave Rubin and Haidt/Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) about the actual state of the left's affairs. See my comment No. 73 above.

    Douglas Murray and Michel Houellebecq have expressed a similar insight. Houellebecq with "Submission" and indirectly with "Sérotonine", too, and Douglas Murray in "The Strange Death of Europe" when he hints at the exhaustion, that has taken hold of all of (old Western-Europe - and this is not only an intellectual exhaustion. This exhaustion runs deeper - it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources - the lack of oversight - - - Habermas coined the term of "the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)" in the 80ies.

  107. @PhysicistDave
    Altai wrote:

    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.
     
    I actually do not think so.

    As I have mentioned before, my daughter was brutally attacked and injured at UCLA last May, and since then I have had to deal with lots of "woke" UCLA administrators who are, bizarrely, trying to blame her.

    Everyone I have dealt with is truly and clearly dumb, at the level that I wonder how they got out of high school: I am not simply judging their opinions -- they cannot, for example, take notes, they cannot proofread things they write, etc. Some of them are making over $200,000 a year (please, everyone: not any of this "They must be smart to be making that much": a dumb person can win the lottery!).

    No, there are lots of smart people who voted for Hillary, even for Jill Stein: I suspect both Pinker and David Reich did, as well as a number of my fellow physicists who I know to be bright.

    But to be fully "woke," even to be good at faking being truly "woke," no, I think a smart person would just start laughing and laughing and give the game away.

    Don’t confuse expertise- or even genius, in the chosen field with cognitive ability & emotional-moral maturity. Critical thinking, I’m talking about this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

    Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

    With regard to human condition, or even more complex social & cultural realities, many high level scientists were basically – morons, fachidioten.

    In that sorry case of your daughter’s traumatic experience, university bureaucrats are even less- they are not fachidiots. They’re simply good, old fashioned – idiots.

  108. @James N. Kennett
    Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion. You don't need anybody smart to reinforce your religious beliefs. All you need is priests, whose job is to keep telling you what you must believe, and the Inquisition, whose job is to kill heretics. Physical death of heretics is seldom necessary: social and professional death, followed by unpersoning, are sufficient in most cases.

    Sacred relics, such as photographs of Emmett Till, help people to believe.

    Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion cult

    FIFY

    Physical death of heretics is seldom necessary: social and professional death, followed by unpersoning, are sufficient in most cases.

    Exactly.

    Sacred relics, such as photographs of Emmett Till, help people to believe.

    Don’t forget St. Trayvon!

  109. @Hypnotoad666

    A Theory of Justice” is an unbelievably stupid book.
     
    I'll confess I've never read Rawls' in the original. But unless I misunderstand his theory, I don't think it's stupid or malign.

    His theory is that the best we can do to define "fairness" objectively is by reference to the universal (and perhaps biologically programmed) value of reciprocity -- i.e., to treat others as you would expect them to treat you.

    In other words, what's fair is what you would agree to "if the shoe were on the other foot." So a fair game/system is where the players agree to the rules before they know which side they will be on.

    The theory has obvious practical limitations. But it's basically just utilitarianism. For example, if people know there will be more and better stuff in their system if they allow individuals to be incentivized with profit, they will build those rules into their "fair" system even before they know who will benefit most. Because those rules will benefit all the players that they might be.

    I think people are mostly misunderstanding Rawls if they think his theory calls for radical levelling.

    You’re reducing Rawls to nothing but the completely trivial point that “Lot’s views on morality should not center around what’s best for Lot to the exclusion of the wellbeing of others.”

    His method is inhuman. We’re not a bunch of basically identical gameplayers who need a set of rules to play by, but biological beings whose moral goodness is mostly an interaction of our genes, and the family environment that is likewise shaped by the behavior that is heavily the result of our family’s genes.

    Further, we know from experience that the sort of transfer payments to the unfortunate Rawls thinks we’d all want behind the veil of ignorance is dysgenic. The only way around this is to say “Well then we really wouldn’t want such transfers” and you again just make his whole method and system trivial and contentless.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Whether Rawls was right or not, it's irrelevant. He was a man of IDEAS whereas we are living in the of Age of Idolatry-Identity. Ideas matter far less than "Is it good for Jews, blacks, and homos?" When liberalism was riding high, people revolved around ideas. Its peak was the Civil Rights Movement when it seemed both decent whites and blacks were committed to the notion of equality and human rights for all Americans. But it wasn't long before Jews, blacks, and feminists put identity before ideas. And then, the homos really ran with this.
    Take Diversity. What kind of an idea is that? If diversity is great but if diverse peoples disagree in their views, interests, and IDEAS, what is The Idea to govern them all? In current West, we are told Diversity is great but Divisiveness is bad. Hello, DIVERSITY BREEDS DIVISIVENESS. So, how does such illogic and idiocy prevail? Because ideas are now secondary to identity-idolatry. Jews think diversity is good for their power, and THAT IS WHY we hear 'diversity is our strength'. Like him or not, Rawls was a real idea-man who believed in true commitment to ideas and principles(even if his weren't good in the end).

    Because Jews, blacks, and homos are special according to the reigning Identity-Idolatry, even non-Jews, non-blacks, and non-homos invoke or use Jewish symbols, black symbols, and/or homo symbols. Many churches now feel hollow unless they are associated with holy homos. To gain brownie points, people today are far less likely to make real arguments than show affiliation with one of the holy groups. Instead of 'God on our side', it's 'Jews, homos, or blacks on our side.'
    GOP the cuck party feels moral deficit unless it's all about serving Holy Jews and Israel. Even non-blacks go on and on about Mandela and BLM.
    One of the problems of leftist thought was that the ideas, even though universal and grandiose(and even inspired), had little bearing on reality. Marxism's scientific materialism wasn't all that scientific or data-based. Classic Liberalism ignored the reality of racial differences and human nature. Blacks are not whites with black skin, and whites are not blacks with white skin. There are deeper differences, and IDEAS alone will not fix problems. Still, leftism was still about ideas and principles based on universal goals. No longer. What now passes for 'leftism' is really about serving the vanity, egotism, megalomania, and/or supremacist narcissism of Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Another problem is the convergence of leftism and libertarianism. Some see libertarianism as essentially rightist, some see it as essentially leftist. There are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. But essentially, libertarianism in practice is about self-indulgence and decadence. Now, a man of conservative bent like Ron Paul can be libertarian. He's for liberty as individual freedom and responsibility. But given human nature, the rise of libertarianism doesn't foster responsibility but decadence and even degeneracy. Ron Paul says it should up for individuals to decide what drugs to use. What he ignores is that some drugs psychologically rob people of freedom. Someone who uses meth or heroin and becomes an addict no longer has free will. He's a mind-slave of the pusher. Also, the reason why people like Ron Paul use freedom responsibly is because they grew up in an America that used to be far more conservative, family-oriented, traditionalist, Christian, and even communitarian. Freedom is good, but it doesn't build character. Rather, character is built by other forces, and good character uses freedom well. This is why Ron Paul's been a family man and doesn't indulge in drugs. But what built his character? A libertarian order or a socially conservative order?

    Though leftism and libertarianism were both opposed to conservatism, it was for different reasons, and this is crucial. Libertarianism opposed conservatism as being too moralistic, judgmental, and intolerant. In contrast, leftism opposed conservatism as being not moralistic enough(or moralistic about the wrong things), not judgmental enough, and too tolerant of evil. Libertarians are into 'doing my thing' whereas leftists are into saving the world. Thus, if libertarians gripe that conservatives stand in the way of freedom in drugs and sex, leftists fume that conservatism fails to condemn and instead tolerates too much that is reactionary, prejudiced, bigoted, and wicked in the name of the Constitution and individual rights. Because the reasons for opposing conservatism was different among libertarians and leftists, it's a mistake to confuse libertarianism and leftism as some people do.

    That said, a kind of convergence between leftism and libertarianism happened, and we see most with rise of globo-homo. Libertarianism undermined conservatism with greater push for sex, drugs, and decadence in society and culture, esp pop culture, the only culture left standing that matters. Now, libertarians didn't push these things to be objects of new theology. They just wanted more liberty and freedom for individuals of all stripes to indulge themselves. Camille Paglia has been part of this wing of libertarianism. She never said we should worship homos or trannies or ponographers. Her point was that they, as individuals, should be free to indulge in that stuff. Let homos be totally homo as individuals.
    But what happened is that the 'new leftism' began to idealize and even sanctify the new degeneracy from an individual matter to a mass idolatry. So, it went from 'gay' liberty to 'gay' deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM. And there is now a push to decriminalize black thuggery in many areas because blackness is holy. So, it went from tolerating crazy black expression in pop music to glorifying black thuggery in real life. So, if blacks don't feel like paying fare on NY subway, white progs join in support of blacks because whatever blacks do, even crime, is sacrosanct. Libertarians pushed for more freedom in the name of individual liberty, but leftists took this increased freedom and turned them into a idolatrous dogma of neo-spirituality. It went from homos freed from religious intolerance to homos as the new face of christianity, what with so many churches flying the homo victory flag.

    Another problem that besets the current 'left' -- but this a problem in ANY ORDER -- is the level of sadistic bloodsport mentality that has gripped the movement. It's the difference between Patton and Omar Bradley in the movie. Bradley sees the evil of war but understands it's necessary to defeat the Axis. In contrast, Patton is in love with war, like Colonel Kilgore in APOCALYPSE NOW. It's almost like a blood sports to him. He wants even more war with the Soviet Union. He's a perpetual warrior. Such war fever can even grip those who are fearful of war. The men in BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES are happy to be back home, but they also feel bored and small back in their humdrum lives. They are not heroes anymore.

    It is a distinction made by George Romero in his zombie movies. There's a difference between fighting/killing zombies in order to survive and hunting down zombies as a sport. We sympathize with the characters in the movie because they are merely trying to survive. But when the clean-up crew arrives at the end, it's a bit disturbing because they seem to enjoy the sport of killing zombies. They are making a sport of it. It's the difference between a hunter who kills for food, which is bloody but justifiable as life consumes life AND the hunter who kills animals just for fun sport of it all. Likewise, there are soldiers who see war as necessary evil, and then there are war lovers who see war as a great opportunity to just blow things up. There's a scene in JARHEAD(dumb movie) where soldiers are shown the attack scene in APOCALYPSE NOW and cheering like mad at the sheer destruction. It was war-as-sport-and-spectacle mentality.

    https://youtu.be/4RLhTKSVr1o?t=25

    Among leftists, there were those who really believed in the cause and saw violence as a necessary evil to bring about a better order. But there were also those who really relished revolution as opportunity to indulge in bloodsport. Mao's Cultural Revolution was really more the latter. It gave young lunatics a chance to play rock-and-revolution by rampaging around and smashing everything in their path. Though shouting about justice, they couldn't get enough of the mayhem, sadism, and thrills.
    And this element of radicalism is very much alive in today's wokey hokey nonsense. Most of these people cannot be taken seriously. Whether it's deranged Antifa and BLM thugs in the streets or homo-nihilistist-narcissists and Jewish supremacists in the institutions, they revel in sadism, insanity, and nihilistic love of power. In this, Richard Spencer the faustian superman has something in common with them. They all sniff the movement like glue. It's all about fuming with the fumes. They don't just believe in sticking in the knife. They must twist it and then torture the body and burn it. Some of the anti-White TV shows really revel in a kind of bloodsport. One is called THE HUNT I hear.
  110. Well, you certainly ain’t no intellectual, that is one thing we can agree on.

    That article on Said was completely utterly dumbass. It didn’t say anything about anything. And it wasn’t about Said.

    You are a complete tool fool and you can’t write at-tall. I could out-write you with my ass.

    • LOL: Rob
    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '... I could out-write you with my ass.'

    You apparently try. You certainly haven't succeeded.
    , @a reader

    ... and you can’t write at-tall.
     
    Excellent. I'll borrow that.
  111. @Steve Sailer
    Miranda took Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton to read on the beach on vacation, where he got the idea for his magnum opus.

    He's a bright guy, although that's by the standards of entertainers rather than academics. I also suspect he is not quite as woke as many assume.

    Miranda was thrilled when Obama commuted the sentence of FALN terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I tracked Miranda's family down: they've been prominent in Puerto Rico for a long time. Unfortunately, I don't remember exactly what I found. I think some great uncle of his was a right hand man of the main Puerto Rican nationalist, who was kind of a fascist in the 1930s, but then swung left in the 1940s. Or something like that.

    But I kind of respect Puerto Rican nationalists.

  112. @J.Ross
    Skimming the comments I am seeing rough consensus that they don't have any more Foucaults because they no longer need them, as they have bureaucrats (and Diversity Officers in every major corporation) instead.

    You could reformulate this observation of yours also thus: The influence of people like De Man, Foucault and – – – Marx etc. does not need actual successors, because the very nature of ideas is that they differ from humans in that they don’t die when their creators die. Steve Sailer’s post above suffers from one or two of this kind of not quite right presuppositions.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation. My reading of the post was that we are not concerned with prophets (or with the competent) but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability. Almost no leftist social scientist can claim to have the same wider respect enjoyed by mid-twentieth century intellectuals of various stripes (again, none of whom are in Marx's ballpark).
    There is also the problem that we on the right have plenty of intellectuals, and insofar as their status is questionable, it is only because monolithic dinosaur media unpersonning denies them due fame.
    I really intensely dislike this idea that the lack of X is because it was done so well before (an idea, unfortunately, also disliked by Hollywood), to the extent that I am afraid of being trite in dismissing it. Maybe the technological opening of bottlenecks must be included: once, you had only to make it in London, Paris, or New York, where you would only be competing with your fellow heavily selected Great City hopefuls on pretty standard criteria, and now everyone competes with everyone else in a global metaculture. A proper academic is outliked by a YouTuber (but perhaps should be).
  113. All over the world, thought is essentially patriarchal, and in the west mostly a construct of white privilege- so it must be off limits to the “woke.”

  114. I think what Zack is asking here, given his suggestion of Murray (whose ankles Zack is not fit to bite), is: What intellectual has done more to undermine the righteous efforts of those of our persuasion in spreading the good word of the world as it ought to be conceived?

    But to the question: Naomi Klein wrote the book on exploitative international capitalism. Eye-opening if you can handle it.

    Remember, people: Shock wears off (but disaffection soaks in).

  115. The Jewish Intellectuals who set this entire phenomenon in motion are incredibly smart people.

    The future may very well prove that they were too smart for their own good.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The Jewish Intellectuals who set this entire phenomenon in motion are incredibly smart people.
     
    Exactly what phenomenon did they set in motion?
  116. @houston 1992
    Low quality thinking is no bar to success when one has the megaphone.

    “Low quality thinking is no bar to success when one has the megaphone.”

    It’s not just access to the megaphone, they’ve always had that. What changed things was the internet took peer pressure from a few dozen to tens of thousands.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    What changed things was the internet took peer pressure from a few dozen to tens of thousands.
     
    Please explain what you mean.
  117. @Dieter Kief
    You could reformulate this observation of yours also thus: The influence of people like De Man, Foucault and - - - Marx etc. does not need actual successors, because the very nature of ideas is that they differ from humans in that they don't die when their creators die. Steve Sailer's post above suffers from one or two of this kind of not quite right presuppositions.

    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation. My reading of the post was that we are not concerned with prophets (or with the competent) but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability. Almost no leftist social scientist can claim to have the same wider respect enjoyed by mid-twentieth century intellectuals of various stripes (again, none of whom are in Marx’s ballpark).
    There is also the problem that we on the right have plenty of intellectuals, and insofar as their status is questionable, it is only because monolithic dinosaur media unpersonning denies them due fame.
    I really intensely dislike this idea that the lack of X is because it was done so well before (an idea, unfortunately, also disliked by Hollywood), to the extent that I am afraid of being trite in dismissing it. Maybe the technological opening of bottlenecks must be included: once, you had only to make it in London, Paris, or New York, where you would only be competing with your fellow heavily selected Great City hopefuls on pretty standard criteria, and now everyone competes with everyone else in a global metaculture. A proper academic is outliked by a YouTuber (but perhaps should be).

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation.
     
    If not for WWI, would Marxism have amounted to much in the 20th century?

    WWI undermined the Tsar and destroyed the Kerensky government. Bolsheviks took over a vast nation with lots of natural resources, one that could survive sanctions. Just by taking over Petrograd, they took over the biggest country on earth. Also, the fact that a backward nation could go communist had a ripple effect on the non-white world. They could ignore Marxist theory of capitalism and go from agrarianism directly to communism.

    Also, it was WWII that led to Soviets taking all of Eastern Europe and created conditions for Chinese communists to take over China.

    If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism's influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the 'Marxist Century' was one of the biggest accidents of history.

    , @Anonymous

    but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability.
     
    When it's comes to top nudger, there is Cass Sunstein. But that goes against the spirit of true thought. Sunstein isn't interested in speaking the truth and winning over people via critical-rational faculty. He's all about looking for irrational vulnerabilities, the achilles heels of the mind, to manipulate and 'nudge' toward the agenda of his ilk. He's advertising agent as academician.
  118. @James N. Kennett
    Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion. You don't need anybody smart to reinforce your religious beliefs. All you need is priests, whose job is to keep telling you what you must believe, and the Inquisition, whose job is to kill heretics. Physical death of heretics is seldom necessary: social and professional death, followed by unpersoning, are sufficient in most cases.

    Sacred relics, such as photographs of Emmett Till, help people to believe.

    “Wokeness is no longer an intellectual movement, it is a religion.”

    All religions require faith. The most faithful will believe when all evidence points to the contrary. And they will be revered for that.

  119. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    You’re reducing Rawls to nothing but the completely trivial point that “Lot’s views on morality should not center around what’s best for Lot to the exclusion of the wellbeing of others.”

    His method is inhuman. We’re not a bunch of basically identical gameplayers who need a set of rules to play by, but biological beings whose moral goodness is mostly an interaction of our genes, and the family environment that is likewise shaped by the behavior that is heavily the result of our family’s genes.

    Further, we know from experience that the sort of transfer payments to the unfortunate Rawls thinks we’d all want behind the veil of ignorance is dysgenic. The only way around this is to say “Well then we really wouldn’t want such transfers” and you again just make his whole method and system trivial and contentless.

    Whether Rawls was right or not, it’s irrelevant. He was a man of IDEAS whereas we are living in the of Age of Idolatry-Identity. Ideas matter far less than “Is it good for Jews, blacks, and homos?” When liberalism was riding high, people revolved around ideas. Its peak was the Civil Rights Movement when it seemed both decent whites and blacks were committed to the notion of equality and human rights for all Americans. But it wasn’t long before Jews, blacks, and feminists put identity before ideas. And then, the homos really ran with this.
    Take Diversity. What kind of an idea is that? If diversity is great but if diverse peoples disagree in their views, interests, and IDEAS, what is The Idea to govern them all? In current West, we are told Diversity is great but Divisiveness is bad. Hello, DIVERSITY BREEDS DIVISIVENESS. So, how does such illogic and idiocy prevail? Because ideas are now secondary to identity-idolatry. Jews think diversity is good for their power, and THAT IS WHY we hear ‘diversity is our strength’. Like him or not, Rawls was a real idea-man who believed in true commitment to ideas and principles(even if his weren’t good in the end).

    Because Jews, blacks, and homos are special according to the reigning Identity-Idolatry, even non-Jews, non-blacks, and non-homos invoke or use Jewish symbols, black symbols, and/or homo symbols. Many churches now feel hollow unless they are associated with holy homos. To gain brownie points, people today are far less likely to make real arguments than show affiliation with one of the holy groups. Instead of ‘God on our side’, it’s ‘Jews, homos, or blacks on our side.’
    GOP the cuck party feels moral deficit unless it’s all about serving Holy Jews and Israel. Even non-blacks go on and on about Mandela and BLM.
    One of the problems of leftist thought was that the ideas, even though universal and grandiose(and even inspired), had little bearing on reality. Marxism’s scientific materialism wasn’t all that scientific or data-based. Classic Liberalism ignored the reality of racial differences and human nature. Blacks are not whites with black skin, and whites are not blacks with white skin. There are deeper differences, and IDEAS alone will not fix problems. Still, leftism was still about ideas and principles based on universal goals. No longer. What now passes for ‘leftism’ is really about serving the vanity, egotism, megalomania, and/or supremacist narcissism of Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Another problem is the convergence of leftism and libertarianism. Some see libertarianism as essentially rightist, some see it as essentially leftist. There are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. But essentially, libertarianism in practice is about self-indulgence and decadence. Now, a man of conservative bent like Ron Paul can be libertarian. He’s for liberty as individual freedom and responsibility. But given human nature, the rise of libertarianism doesn’t foster responsibility but decadence and even degeneracy. Ron Paul says it should up for individuals to decide what drugs to use. What he ignores is that some drugs psychologically rob people of freedom. Someone who uses meth or heroin and becomes an addict no longer has free will. He’s a mind-slave of the pusher. Also, the reason why people like Ron Paul use freedom responsibly is because they grew up in an America that used to be far more conservative, family-oriented, traditionalist, Christian, and even communitarian. Freedom is good, but it doesn’t build character. Rather, character is built by other forces, and good character uses freedom well. This is why Ron Paul’s been a family man and doesn’t indulge in drugs. But what built his character? A libertarian order or a socially conservative order?

    Though leftism and libertarianism were both opposed to conservatism, it was for different reasons, and this is crucial. Libertarianism opposed conservatism as being too moralistic, judgmental, and intolerant. In contrast, leftism opposed conservatism as being not moralistic enough(or moralistic about the wrong things), not judgmental enough, and too tolerant of evil. Libertarians are into ‘doing my thing’ whereas leftists are into saving the world. Thus, if libertarians gripe that conservatives stand in the way of freedom in drugs and sex, leftists fume that conservatism fails to condemn and instead tolerates too much that is reactionary, prejudiced, bigoted, and wicked in the name of the Constitution and individual rights. Because the reasons for opposing conservatism was different among libertarians and leftists, it’s a mistake to confuse libertarianism and leftism as some people do.

    That said, a kind of convergence between leftism and libertarianism happened, and we see most with rise of globo-homo. Libertarianism undermined conservatism with greater push for sex, drugs, and decadence in society and culture, esp pop culture, the only culture left standing that matters. Now, libertarians didn’t push these things to be objects of new theology. They just wanted more liberty and freedom for individuals of all stripes to indulge themselves. Camille Paglia has been part of this wing of libertarianism. She never said we should worship homos or trannies or ponographers. Her point was that they, as individuals, should be free to indulge in that stuff. Let homos be totally homo as individuals.
    But what happened is that the ‘new leftism’ began to idealize and even sanctify the new degeneracy from an individual matter to a mass idolatry. So, it went from ‘gay’ liberty to ‘gay’ deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM. And there is now a push to decriminalize black thuggery in many areas because blackness is holy. So, it went from tolerating crazy black expression in pop music to glorifying black thuggery in real life. So, if blacks don’t feel like paying fare on NY subway, white progs join in support of blacks because whatever blacks do, even crime, is sacrosanct. Libertarians pushed for more freedom in the name of individual liberty, but leftists took this increased freedom and turned them into a idolatrous dogma of neo-spirituality. It went from homos freed from religious intolerance to homos as the new face of christianity, what with so many churches flying the homo victory flag.

    Another problem that besets the current ‘left’ — but this a problem in ANY ORDER — is the level of sadistic bloodsport mentality that has gripped the movement. It’s the difference between Patton and Omar Bradley in the movie. Bradley sees the evil of war but understands it’s necessary to defeat the Axis. In contrast, Patton is in love with war, like Colonel Kilgore in APOCALYPSE NOW. It’s almost like a blood sports to him. He wants even more war with the Soviet Union. He’s a perpetual warrior. Such war fever can even grip those who are fearful of war. The men in BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES are happy to be back home, but they also feel bored and small back in their humdrum lives. They are not heroes anymore.

    It is a distinction made by George Romero in his zombie movies. There’s a difference between fighting/killing zombies in order to survive and hunting down zombies as a sport. We sympathize with the characters in the movie because they are merely trying to survive. But when the clean-up crew arrives at the end, it’s a bit disturbing because they seem to enjoy the sport of killing zombies. They are making a sport of it. It’s the difference between a hunter who kills for food, which is bloody but justifiable as life consumes life AND the hunter who kills animals just for fun sport of it all. Likewise, there are soldiers who see war as necessary evil, and then there are war lovers who see war as a great opportunity to just blow things up. There’s a scene in JARHEAD(dumb movie) where soldiers are shown the attack scene in APOCALYPSE NOW and cheering like mad at the sheer destruction. It was war-as-sport-and-spectacle mentality.

    Among leftists, there were those who really believed in the cause and saw violence as a necessary evil to bring about a better order. But there were also those who really relished revolution as opportunity to indulge in bloodsport. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was really more the latter. It gave young lunatics a chance to play rock-and-revolution by rampaging around and smashing everything in their path. Though shouting about justice, they couldn’t get enough of the mayhem, sadism, and thrills.
    And this element of radicalism is very much alive in today’s wokey hokey nonsense. Most of these people cannot be taken seriously. Whether it’s deranged Antifa and BLM thugs in the streets or homo-nihilistist-narcissists and Jewish supremacists in the institutions, they revel in sadism, insanity, and nihilistic love of power. In this, Richard Spencer the faustian superman has something in common with them. They all sniff the movement like glue. It’s all about fuming with the fumes. They don’t just believe in sticking in the knife. They must twist it and then torture the body and burn it. Some of the anti-White TV shows really revel in a kind of bloodsport. One is called THE HUNT I hear.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    So, it went from ‘gay’ liberty to ‘gay’ deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM.
     
    Humanism and the leftist call for emancipation! are both in constant danger to become self-centered = self-aggrandizing / self-worshipping and thus regressive (=cruel, sadist, etc. - not least (that was one of the soft spots of the middle-aged Herbert Marcuse - the old one turned to - - -Goethe (and Dylan!) as antidotes to his earlier loftiness).

    (That is the systematic place of - - - theology, asceticism, wisdom, humor (cf. Goethe's Faust and his Maxims and Rflections) etc.

  120. @prime noticer
    proponents of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory ARE smart in their own way. their numbers are legion, so maybe you can't point to any one or two particular leaders, but they have bee wildly successful, don't you think? they're on the verge of convincing western europeans, the most dominant humans who ever lived, to voluntarily give up their countries, and eventually, even their existence.

    my vote is for the prosecutors of Cultural Marxism, whoever they may be. largely Jewish, influential perhaps beyond comprehension. never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds.

    … never before in human history has such a self negating thought virus spread like wildfire thru a billion minds.

    Plenty of smaller groups, before the era of mass communication, have taken wrong turns.

    It’s easier to destroy than to build.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  121. @anon
    During the Cultural Revo, were there any Red Guards who were thinkers?

    Were there any smart thinkers among the Khmer Rouge?

    Isn't Wokeness implicitly anti-thought?

    “During the Cultural Revo, were there any Red Guards who were thinkers? ”

    Yang Xiguang, main ideologue of the Sheng-wu-lien (“Hunan Provincial Proletarian Revolutionary Great Alliance Committee”)?

  122. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    What is “today’s ideology”? I never heard of it before.
     
    I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the "woke" mindset.

    And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don't you?

    And so do I. And so do lots of people here.

    Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong.

    Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?

    Even a guy like Abbie Hoffman was interesting and had something to say!

    Today's "woke" leftists...(yawn).

    “I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the “woke” mindset.”

    According to Who/Whom? Are today’s normies supportive or opposed to “wokeness”, or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?

    “And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don’t you?”

    Respect and agree with wholeheartedly or in part are two separate things.

    “Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong.”

    Wrong, according to their detractors.

    “Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?”

    I read through it all. The point I am making is that there seems to be an intellectual pissing match between the Alt Right and leftists. Both sides assume Normies have a modicum of understanding the champions of thought they trot out and put on a pedestal. I mean, how many American whites could even explain the main ideas offered by Said, Chomsky, Gould, Boyd, Stoddard, Nietzsche, Yarvin, Sailer, Derbyshire, Vox Day, Molyneaux, and company? To what extent are these individuals even on the radar screen of Normies?

    “Today’s “woke” leftists…(yawn).”

    Again, according to Who/Whom?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus asked me:

    Are today’s normies supportive or opposed to “wokeness”, or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?
     
    I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses.

    On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with Keynes:

    Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
     
    Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the "academic scribblers," but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.

    Keynes is, by the way, one of those who was, in my opinion, often wrong but who still had important things to say.
  123. Are there any real smart Woke intellectuals?

    This is a trick question, right?

  124. In order for a person to take an interest in politics and current affairs he or she will probably need an IQ of, let us say, 90. Anyone who scores lower will probably have their focus on more concrete and immediate things such as work and family. (But I am not saying that everyone with an IQ above 90 is necessarily going to be interested in politics. I can remember perfectly intelligent aunties whose entire conversation seemed to be about their children.)

    But anyone with an IQ between say 90 and 110 who is interested in current affairs will still not have sufficient intelligence to do their own independent research, to read between the lines of the mainstream narratives, and to seek out more authentic news and commentary sources.

    Only a person who is capable of doing their own research, unaided, will navigate towards sites such as unz.com, for example, or Steve Sailer’s blog. And to do these things one needs an IQ above 110.

    The trouble is, of course, that a sizeable chunk of the population actually has an IQ between 90 and 110. Indeed, given a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, then two thirds of a standard deviation either side of the mean comprises almost exactly 50% of the population.

    So 25% of the population doesn’t care, 50% of the population do care but they swallow the mainstream drivel. Only at most 25% are intelligent enough to both care about where their society and culture is headed and to understand the real reasons behind the decline. Therefore we are doomed.

    • Replies: @vhrm
    Our society is way too complex for any individual even a high IQ one to understand by themselves in detail.

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.

    In some aspects of the social sciences though, we seem to be in a regressive period at least in academia in the US. It's sad, but hopefully it's not forever.
  125. @Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.
     
    What was malign about Rawls?

    Et tu, Cato?

  126. @Bill Jones
    Any failing enterprise loses the smart people first.

    We have a winner.

  127. @Hypnotoad666

    A Theory of Justice” is an unbelievably stupid book.
     
    I'll confess I've never read Rawls' in the original. But unless I misunderstand his theory, I don't think it's stupid or malign.

    His theory is that the best we can do to define "fairness" objectively is by reference to the universal (and perhaps biologically programmed) value of reciprocity -- i.e., to treat others as you would expect them to treat you.

    In other words, what's fair is what you would agree to "if the shoe were on the other foot." So a fair game/system is where the players agree to the rules before they know which side they will be on.

    The theory has obvious practical limitations. But it's basically just utilitarianism. For example, if people know there will be more and better stuff in their system if they allow individuals to be incentivized with profit, they will build those rules into their "fair" system even before they know who will benefit most. Because those rules will benefit all the players that they might be.

    I think people are mostly misunderstanding Rawls if they think his theory calls for radical levelling.

    His theory calls for radical leveling.

    In practice it reinvents privilege in ways that are primitive when they’re not actively inimical to merit.

    As Lot has noted, the core error is imagining the individual (literally undivideable, akin to unique prime factorization) unit of humanity to be the single human organism itself, when in fact it is the chain of being across generations which is truly individual. Breaking that chain loses too much of fundamental value.

  128. @Barnard
    Miranda was thrilled when Obama commuted the sentence of FALN terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera.

    I tracked Miranda’s family down: they’ve been prominent in Puerto Rico for a long time. Unfortunately, I don’t remember exactly what I found. I think some great uncle of his was a right hand man of the main Puerto Rican nationalist, who was kind of a fascist in the 1930s, but then swung left in the 1940s. Or something like that.

    But I kind of respect Puerto Rican nationalists.

  129. @martin_2
    In order for a person to take an interest in politics and current affairs he or she will probably need an IQ of, let us say, 90. Anyone who scores lower will probably have their focus on more concrete and immediate things such as work and family. (But I am not saying that everyone with an IQ above 90 is necessarily going to be interested in politics. I can remember perfectly intelligent aunties whose entire conversation seemed to be about their children.)

    But anyone with an IQ between say 90 and 110 who is interested in current affairs will still not have sufficient intelligence to do their own independent research, to read between the lines of the mainstream narratives, and to seek out more authentic news and commentary sources.

    Only a person who is capable of doing their own research, unaided, will navigate towards sites such as unz.com, for example, or Steve Sailer’s blog. And to do these things one needs an IQ above 110.

    The trouble is, of course, that a sizeable chunk of the population actually has an IQ between 90 and 110. Indeed, given a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, then two thirds of a standard deviation either side of the mean comprises almost exactly 50% of the population.

    So 25% of the population doesn’t care, 50% of the population do care but they swallow the mainstream drivel. Only at most 25% are intelligent enough to both care about where their society and culture is headed and to understand the real reasons behind the decline. Therefore we are doomed.

    Our society is way too complex for any individual even a high IQ one to understand by themselves in detail.

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.

    In some aspects of the social sciences though, we seem to be in a regressive period at least in academia in the US. It’s sad, but hopefully it’s not forever.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    vhrm wrote:

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.
     
    Big Science first hit academic physics and for the last forty years it has not worked out well. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math or her website or Peter Woit's website.

    Leo Sxilard predicted this, back when the National Science Foundation was created, in his satirical short story "The Mark Gable Foundation."
  130. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation. My reading of the post was that we are not concerned with prophets (or with the competent) but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability. Almost no leftist social scientist can claim to have the same wider respect enjoyed by mid-twentieth century intellectuals of various stripes (again, none of whom are in Marx's ballpark).
    There is also the problem that we on the right have plenty of intellectuals, and insofar as their status is questionable, it is only because monolithic dinosaur media unpersonning denies them due fame.
    I really intensely dislike this idea that the lack of X is because it was done so well before (an idea, unfortunately, also disliked by Hollywood), to the extent that I am afraid of being trite in dismissing it. Maybe the technological opening of bottlenecks must be included: once, you had only to make it in London, Paris, or New York, where you would only be competing with your fellow heavily selected Great City hopefuls on pretty standard criteria, and now everyone competes with everyone else in a global metaculture. A proper academic is outliked by a YouTuber (but perhaps should be).

    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation.

    If not for WWI, would Marxism have amounted to much in the 20th century?

    WWI undermined the Tsar and destroyed the Kerensky government. Bolsheviks took over a vast nation with lots of natural resources, one that could survive sanctions. Just by taking over Petrograd, they took over the biggest country on earth. Also, the fact that a backward nation could go communist had a ripple effect on the non-white world. They could ignore Marxist theory of capitalism and go from agrarianism directly to communism.

    Also, it was WWII that led to Soviets taking all of Eastern Europe and created conditions for Chinese communists to take over China.

    If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism’s influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the ‘Marxist Century’ was one of the biggest accidents of history.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '... If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism’s influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the ‘Marxist Century’ was one of the biggest accidents of history.'

    I think you exaggerate. Revolutionary socialism -- sometimes violent revolutionary socialism -- was a major element in all modern societies before World War One.

    Obviously, absent the Bolshevik example, things would have taken a different course after World War One, but the movements wouldn't simply have gone away.

    It's conceivable the century might have even been more 'Marxist.' For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany -- and installed a radical socialist regime and -- being Germans -- made it work. That might have had far more influence than the decidedly unappealing example of Stalinist Russia. After all, many Western Communists and near-Communists went to Russia and said 'this isn't working.' What if they'd been going to the German Socialist Republic and going 'wow: this is great!'

    I only mention it as a possibility. Maybe it was all for the best that Socialism got its trial runs in Russia and China.
    , @J.Ross
    That's true, and there are plenty of violent leftists who would have objected to association with Marx, but for our purposes the point is that Marx isn't really a good fit here.
  131. @Anonymous

    It’s interesting how it is easy to come up with candidates for malign intellectual influence among left of center 1970s heavyweights — e.g., Foucault, Edward Said, Stephen Jay Gould, or John Rawls.
     
    What was malign about Rawls?

    John Rawls may have been influential among moderate left liberals in the 1970s, but his influence on society as a whole has been very limited. In terms of economic equality, which was Rawls main concern, America is more unequal than in was in the seventies, so he hasn’t had much real world influence. In the economic sphere, right wing liberals like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand have probably had a lot more real world influence than Rawls.

    On the left, Its the radical cultural leftists that have had the greater influence. Modern America looks like the outcome of a non-aggression pact between right-wing liberals like Friedman and left-wing post modernists like Foucault.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    A big part of the reason that America is more unequal now, is that America has been totally flooded and overrun by invading Third World paupers. The paupers increase inequality simply by being paupers, but they also secondarily increase inequality by driving down wages, which drives up profits, which go into the pockets of already-wealthy plutocrats, thus broadening the divide even more. It's a double whammy.

    A significant reason for the massive flood of paupers is that there was insufficient collective will to keep them out, either by a wall, or through arrests or forced deportation, or else by shooting them if all else failed. I recall that back in the 30s and 40s, millions of Japanese rather aggressively moved into Manchuria, China and Southeast Asia "in search of a better life," and the locals responded by shooting at them.

    The reason there was insufficient collective will to keep out massive armies of invading foreign paupers, is that Americans had become persuaded, by Rawlsian, quasi-Rawlsian, and Rawls-esque argumentation, that America was not really a nation, it was just a great big giant cookie jar, and every wheedling, begging brown pauper on planet Earth deserved a cookie. After all, the supply of cookies, like the supply of paupers, was limitless. Infinity immigrants deserve infinity cookies. We owe brown people all our cookies: a theory of Justice demands it, and the law doth give it.

    Rawls was not some diabolical single mastermind of this imbecilic manner of thinking, but he did put a respectable face on it. Generations of ambitious young Harvard students had their brains marinated in this drivel. And even if they didn't explicitly agree, they were at least exposed to the virus, and then went on to positions of real power, where they made semi-Rawlsian policy on all fronts.
  132. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation. My reading of the post was that we are not concerned with prophets (or with the competent) but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability. Almost no leftist social scientist can claim to have the same wider respect enjoyed by mid-twentieth century intellectuals of various stripes (again, none of whom are in Marx's ballpark).
    There is also the problem that we on the right have plenty of intellectuals, and insofar as their status is questionable, it is only because monolithic dinosaur media unpersonning denies them due fame.
    I really intensely dislike this idea that the lack of X is because it was done so well before (an idea, unfortunately, also disliked by Hollywood), to the extent that I am afraid of being trite in dismissing it. Maybe the technological opening of bottlenecks must be included: once, you had only to make it in London, Paris, or New York, where you would only be competing with your fellow heavily selected Great City hopefuls on pretty standard criteria, and now everyone competes with everyone else in a global metaculture. A proper academic is outliked by a YouTuber (but perhaps should be).

    but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability.

    When it’s comes to top nudger, there is Cass Sunstein. But that goes against the spirit of true thought. Sunstein isn’t interested in speaking the truth and winning over people via critical-rational faculty. He’s all about looking for irrational vulnerabilities, the achilles heels of the mind, to manipulate and ‘nudge’ toward the agenda of his ilk. He’s advertising agent as academician.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That's zeroing in too closely on the word "nudge" (my mistake): who knew who Sunstein was or valued his opinion outside his field in academia before he was outed as an all-but-scaly reptiloid? And he's a terrible counterexample because he's prretty much the bureaucrat informing government programs for influencing with government power and operations. Had Sunstein never stained his reputation, had he instead written pamphlets and given lectures, and then acquired some notoreity, he'd be in this group, but Sunstein himself would be the first person to tell you that would be a waste of time compared to targeted destruction. Chomsky's politics are naive and his wit is trite sophistry but at least he's not a latter-day Stasi whose plan is to make conspiracy theories come true.
  133. @obwandiyag
    Well, you certainly ain't no intellectual, that is one thing we can agree on.

    That article on Said was completely utterly dumbass. It didn't say anything about anything. And it wasn't about Said.

    You are a complete tool fool and you can't write at-tall. I could out-write you with my ass.

    ‘… I could out-write you with my ass.’

    You apparently try. You certainly haven’t succeeded.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    You are the ass I'm outwriting him with. And yes, it's true. You are an ass. And you can out-write him.
  134. @Anonymous

    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation.
     
    If not for WWI, would Marxism have amounted to much in the 20th century?

    WWI undermined the Tsar and destroyed the Kerensky government. Bolsheviks took over a vast nation with lots of natural resources, one that could survive sanctions. Just by taking over Petrograd, they took over the biggest country on earth. Also, the fact that a backward nation could go communist had a ripple effect on the non-white world. They could ignore Marxist theory of capitalism and go from agrarianism directly to communism.

    Also, it was WWII that led to Soviets taking all of Eastern Europe and created conditions for Chinese communists to take over China.

    If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism's influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the 'Marxist Century' was one of the biggest accidents of history.

    ‘… If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism’s influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the ‘Marxist Century’ was one of the biggest accidents of history.’

    I think you exaggerate. Revolutionary socialism — sometimes violent revolutionary socialism — was a major element in all modern societies before World War One.

    Obviously, absent the Bolshevik example, things would have taken a different course after World War One, but the movements wouldn’t simply have gone away.

    It’s conceivable the century might have even been more ‘Marxist.’ For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany — and installed a radical socialist regime and — being Germans — made it work. That might have had far more influence than the decidedly unappealing example of Stalinist Russia. After all, many Western Communists and near-Communists went to Russia and said ‘this isn’t working.’ What if they’d been going to the German Socialist Republic and going ‘wow: this is great!’

    I only mention it as a possibility. Maybe it was all for the best that Socialism got its trial runs in Russia and China.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany — and installed a radical socialist regime and — being Germans — made it work.
     
    But social democrats were for compromise and gradual move toward socialism.

    Or leftist element might have merged with rightist element, as with Italian Fascism and National Socialism. And Peronism.

    Without the backing of the Soviet Union and historical accidents, it's difficult to see communism spreading anywhere. Cuban communism would have been doomed without Soviet support. And even though Mao lucked out from WWII and Japanese invasion, he also got key support from Soviets who provided sanctuary in Yenan(then effectively controlled by Soviets) and later took over North China from the Japanese, handing the vast territories to Mao.

    And Ho Chi Minh wouldn't have had a chance without Soviets and Red China backing him.
  135. @Colin Wright
    '... I could out-write you with my ass.'

    You apparently try. You certainly haven't succeeded.

    You are the ass I’m outwriting him with. And yes, it’s true. You are an ass. And you can out-write him.

  136. @Anonymous

    but with this academically credible thought leader, capable of nudging society from outside political office because people outside his field take him seriously, and respected even by enemies because of objective ability.
     
    When it's comes to top nudger, there is Cass Sunstein. But that goes against the spirit of true thought. Sunstein isn't interested in speaking the truth and winning over people via critical-rational faculty. He's all about looking for irrational vulnerabilities, the achilles heels of the mind, to manipulate and 'nudge' toward the agenda of his ilk. He's advertising agent as academician.

    That’s zeroing in too closely on the word “nudge” (my mistake): who knew who Sunstein was or valued his opinion outside his field in academia before he was outed as an all-but-scaly reptiloid? And he’s a terrible counterexample because he’s prretty much the bureaucrat informing government programs for influencing with government power and operations. Had Sunstein never stained his reputation, had he instead written pamphlets and given lectures, and then acquired some notoreity, he’d be in this group, but Sunstein himself would be the first person to tell you that would be a waste of time compared to targeted destruction. Chomsky’s politics are naive and his wit is trite sophistry but at least he’s not a latter-day Stasi whose plan is to make conspiracy theories come true.

  137. @Anonymous

    Does this depend on a redefining of the criterion? Foucault, Chomsky and Edward Said were hardly comparable to Marx in their influence (or, for the intiated, their vision), but were easily great intellectuals, and both were vigorously active in the public conversation.
     
    If not for WWI, would Marxism have amounted to much in the 20th century?

    WWI undermined the Tsar and destroyed the Kerensky government. Bolsheviks took over a vast nation with lots of natural resources, one that could survive sanctions. Just by taking over Petrograd, they took over the biggest country on earth. Also, the fact that a backward nation could go communist had a ripple effect on the non-white world. They could ignore Marxist theory of capitalism and go from agrarianism directly to communism.

    Also, it was WWII that led to Soviets taking all of Eastern Europe and created conditions for Chinese communists to take over China.

    If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism's influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the 'Marxist Century' was one of the biggest accidents of history.

    That’s true, and there are plenty of violent leftists who would have objected to association with Marx, but for our purposes the point is that Marx isn’t really a good fit here.

  138. @JohnnyD
    Hebert Marcuse was pretty smart before he started hanging out with Angela Davis. According to Prof. Paul Gottfried, Marcuse knew everything about Hegel. I can't imagine TNC reading Hegel in the original German.

    I can’t imagine TNC reading Hegel in the original German.

    Isn’t the real question whether TNC has ever even heard of Hegel?

  139. @alt right moderate
    John Rawls may have been influential among moderate left liberals in the 1970s, but his influence on society as a whole has been very limited. In terms of economic equality, which was Rawls main concern, America is more unequal than in was in the seventies, so he hasn't had much real world influence. In the economic sphere, right wing liberals like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand have probably had a lot more real world influence than Rawls.

    On the left, Its the radical cultural leftists that have had the greater influence. Modern America looks like the outcome of a non-aggression pact between right-wing liberals like Friedman and left-wing post modernists like Foucault.

    A big part of the reason that America is more unequal now, is that America has been totally flooded and overrun by invading Third World paupers. The paupers increase inequality simply by being paupers, but they also secondarily increase inequality by driving down wages, which drives up profits, which go into the pockets of already-wealthy plutocrats, thus broadening the divide even more. It’s a double whammy.

    A significant reason for the massive flood of paupers is that there was insufficient collective will to keep them out, either by a wall, or through arrests or forced deportation, or else by shooting them if all else failed. I recall that back in the 30s and 40s, millions of Japanese rather aggressively moved into Manchuria, China and Southeast Asia “in search of a better life,” and the locals responded by shooting at them.

    The reason there was insufficient collective will to keep out massive armies of invading foreign paupers, is that Americans had become persuaded, by Rawlsian, quasi-Rawlsian, and Rawls-esque argumentation, that America was not really a nation, it was just a great big giant cookie jar, and every wheedling, begging brown pauper on planet Earth deserved a cookie. After all, the supply of cookies, like the supply of paupers, was limitless. Infinity immigrants deserve infinity cookies. We owe brown people all our cookies: a theory of Justice demands it, and the law doth give it.

    Rawls was not some diabolical single mastermind of this imbecilic manner of thinking, but he did put a respectable face on it. Generations of ambitious young Harvard students had their brains marinated in this drivel. And even if they didn’t explicitly agree, they were at least exposed to the virus, and then went on to positions of real power, where they made semi-Rawlsian policy on all fronts.

  140. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    TL;DR: No intellectual people are any longer influential and intelligence is “faggy” and despised. (“Go ‘way. Batin’!”) As evidenced by the TL;DR thing itself and people’s refusal or inability to read or write complete sentences. The influencers are not the intellectuals…

    Well, they do not have astounding intellect in the way, say, J.R.R. Tolkien, John Stuart Mill, or Søren Kierkegaard (my “philosophers” infra) did. The “big brains” behind this stuff are clever, more than they are genius, and gifted at manipulation (my “shysters” infra) – they were not in the gifted programme at school, but, rather, on the homecoming court and the student council. As has been pointed out, these latter people know good and well the batshit ideologies they promote are unsound for society as a whole, but they do not mind because the policies benefit them; they are alright, Jack, and they’ve a cozy bolthole or two in New Zealand or Uruguay – not that they would even need that, since, after all, life in Brasil, India, or even Nigeria is not all that bad if one is a millionaire. (N.B. their own revealed preferences for nuclear families private schools and detached houses on large parcels of land in the few remaining peaceful areas populated European stock, behind fences with gatehouses or in penthouses with doormen).

    Who specifically are these people? Why they are your iSteve’s bread and butter: Willie Brown, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Anderson Cooper, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Kathleen Kennedy, Tim Cook, Larry Page, Sergey Brin….

    Especially intelligent people whose focus is the human condition and who thus address fundamental sociopolitical questions like those debated at The Unz Review will be honest and clear sighted (stupidity correlates with immorality; evil geniuses are rarer than depraved morons), and they are often constitutionally incapable of the prevaricating and conniving required for the success at the Machiavellian and Byzantine shenanigans behind pushing “wokeness” – that’s the wheelhouse of the Browns, Coopers, and Kennedys. Let us call the first sort the philosophers or statesmen, and the second sort the shysters or rentiers. (A third kind of especially intelligent person is your Edwin Hubble, obsessed with his astronomy and usually not paying much attention to the affairs of either the philosophers or the shysters – call them the scientists if you like.)

    So, then, the philosophers (the Kierkegaards mentioned above, if you like, and what I think is meant by others’ citation of Chomsky and Foucault, though I politely disagree they merit that high regard) are not to be found among the batshit “woke.” The shysters take care of all the heavy lifting needed, and they do quite well.

    So, no, one will not find intellectuals of that calibre and type cheerleading the destruction of Western civilisation. Q.E.D. The super intelligent philosophers and scientists are few, honest, and either unheeded or uninterested; the shysters of middling intelligence run the whole show just as they like. Hell, it’s really almost like Boulle’s chimpanzees and orangutans being kept in line by his gorillas. It’s okay: Jeff Bezos does not mind if a peon like me reckons his intellect middling.

  141. @wev
    The Jewish Intellectuals who set this entire phenomenon in motion are incredibly smart people.

    The future may very well prove that they were too smart for their own good.

    The Jewish Intellectuals who set this entire phenomenon in motion are incredibly smart people.

    Exactly what phenomenon did they set in motion?

  142. @Ozymandias
    "Low quality thinking is no bar to success when one has the megaphone."

    It's not just access to the megaphone, they've always had that. What changed things was the internet took peer pressure from a few dozen to tens of thousands.

    What changed things was the internet took peer pressure from a few dozen to tens of thousands.

    Please explain what you mean.

  143. @Known Fact
    This is not exactly "intellectual," but Gil Scott Heron -- the black dude who always sounded to me like Lou Rawls with an attitude -- was one lefty who seemed to have some wit and sense lurking amid the anger and resentment.

    His “What’s the Word From Johannesburg” was one of the worst things I ever heard on those midnight concert shows of the ’70s. Not a career I wanted to follow.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    On the Midnight Special, ca. 1978. Don't remember the man, but remember the performance. Didn't realize Wolfman Jack died in 1995.
  144. @Known Fact
    This is not exactly "intellectual," but Gil Scott Heron -- the black dude who always sounded to me like Lou Rawls with an attitude -- was one lefty who seemed to have some wit and sense lurking amid the anger and resentment.

    Pieces of a Man, sure. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised — That’s right, any real revolution will be concealed.

  145. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright
    '... If not for WWI and WWII, Marxism’s influence might have been far smaller. In some ways, the ‘Marxist Century’ was one of the biggest accidents of history.'

    I think you exaggerate. Revolutionary socialism -- sometimes violent revolutionary socialism -- was a major element in all modern societies before World War One.

    Obviously, absent the Bolshevik example, things would have taken a different course after World War One, but the movements wouldn't simply have gone away.

    It's conceivable the century might have even been more 'Marxist.' For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany -- and installed a radical socialist regime and -- being Germans -- made it work. That might have had far more influence than the decidedly unappealing example of Stalinist Russia. After all, many Western Communists and near-Communists went to Russia and said 'this isn't working.' What if they'd been going to the German Socialist Republic and going 'wow: this is great!'

    I only mention it as a possibility. Maybe it was all for the best that Socialism got its trial runs in Russia and China.

    For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany — and installed a radical socialist regime and — being Germans — made it work.

    But social democrats were for compromise and gradual move toward socialism.

    Or leftist element might have merged with rightist element, as with Italian Fascism and National Socialism. And Peronism.

    Without the backing of the Soviet Union and historical accidents, it’s difficult to see communism spreading anywhere. Cuban communism would have been doomed without Soviet support. And even though Mao lucked out from WWII and Japanese invasion, he also got key support from Soviets who provided sanctuary in Yenan(then effectively controlled by Soviets) and later took over North China from the Japanese, handing the vast territories to Mao.

    And Ho Chi Minh wouldn’t have had a chance without Soviets and Red China backing him.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '... But social democrats were for compromise and gradual move toward socialism....'

    Post-World War Two, sure. But pre-war, while they notoriously didn't walk the walk, they definitely talked the talk.

    Anyway, I don't think it can be assumed that absent the Russian Revolution, revolutionary socialism just politely goes away. There were revolutionary or potentially revolutionary groups all over the place. Here in the US, for example, there was the IWW, and Eugene V. Debs running for President while in prison. Just look at the abortive socialist republics that were sparked by the Russian example.

    It's like when you have a hot, dry summer, and lots of fuel. You're likely to get a fire, somewhere, at some point. If it hadn't happened as it did, it might have happened some other way. Germany wins the war, and revolution breaks out in France. Who knows?
  146. @anonymous coward
    "Beatles" and "Stones" were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.

    The social engineers who brought you "the Beatles" have since moved on to higher vistas, bringing you "gay marriage" and 51 genders, is all.

    “Beatles” and “Stones” were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.

    As were Bach, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, and all those other composers surviving on sinecures. Puppets of the Esterhazys!

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra’s early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank’s entire career was a fraud. Why anybody listens to him… what am I saying? Nobody listens to him anymore.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra’s early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank’s entire career was a fraud.
     
    I appreciate the point you have made through sarcasm. Still, I must ask, would you entirely deny the contention that Sinatra was overrated? Do you not think that Bing Crosby, for example, was more worthy of the fame that Sinatra enjoyed?

    I am not the only one who finds much more depth, soul, and range in Crosby's singing than in Sinatra's.

  147. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    Agreeing with the category-error comment. Wokeness is 60% political, 40% religious project, not something evoking “life of the mind.” Indeed its closest predecessor is the Maoist struggle session while also being firmly rooted in H’wood traditions of dimestore virtue-signaling.

    New England WASPs can fairly be blamed for the whiff of goo-goo-Yankee Social Gospel on it, and sorta you can blame Paul De Man, or whomever, after the fact. But I always took wokesters for the unironic apostles of Warhol’s fame-worshiping shtick. Belief in celeb power is key: first we need to pick the right priests & priestesses to model Correct Thought, speak power to truth, etc.; a single charismatic “influencer” far outweighs a dozen snappily written issues of NY Review of Books that only about four or five thousand geeks ever saw; clout defined as your own Khmer Rouge to unleash against everyone wearing eyeglasses. What intellectual movement is agile enough to survive that, let alone accommodate or augment it?

    NOT WOKE: Slavoj Zizek; Adolph Reed; Jacobin Magazine (*priorities anti-anti-woke); Naomi Klein/Naomi Wolf; all 20th C. feminists e.g. Germaine Greer; Ralph Nader; Ed Begley Sr. or Jr.

    MAJORLY WOKE: Emily Ratajkowski; bell hooks; Michelle Alexander (required text in college English classes); Rashida Tlaib; Ziad Ahmed; Colin Kaepernick; Amber Rose

  148. @Andy
    Since these woke "intellectuals" refuse to debate people with different viewpoints, as it seems easier for them to dismiss doubters as fascist-racist-sexist-homophobic-blah blah blah, they are actually very weak thinkers, when people shows the many holes in their arguments they immediately go into ad hominem attacks - you are old, you are white, you are male, blah blah blah (of course, perhaps I got the causality backwards, they refuse to debate SINCE they are weak thinkers). Anyway, these "intellectuals" are just incapable of getting into a reasoned argument

    “Since these woke “intellectuals” refuse to debate people with different viewpoints, as it seems easier for them to dismiss doubters as fascist-racist-sexist-homophobic-”
    You’ve hit the nail on the head here. Unwillingness to debate is a key indicator of ideological rather than academic goals.
    That they believe their views are beyond debate (ie proven 100% for all time) is symptomatic of intellectual decadence. Politicians not intellectuals. And piss-weak politicians at that.

  149. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/RheaBoydMD/status/1215674129514319877

    https://twitter.com/JonathanMetzl/status/1215643959126446081

    Dying of whiteness. Defending whiteness kills etc.
    So the “despair” is not from inter-generational unemployment, not from a sense of hopelessness, ill-education, rubbish health care, family disorder or break down or use of drugs etc to deaden the symptoms of the above. NO. None of that. It’s “racial resentment”. It’s all about defending ones “whiteness”.
    I have rarely encountered anything as unequivocally fucking stupid as the above (or as vicious & nasty — these racialists are complete bastards)

  150. @Anonymous

    In this case, I think we’re using smart = bright, vs merely high IQ.
     
    No, it's more like "brilliant, original, deep, penetrating, and/or profound". The neo-prophet of big think who lays down the template for new thought or offers many startling insights about society.

    The thing about Foucault is that even people who found him crazy, malicious, and totally wrong-headed nevertheless found many of his insights about power to be trenchant and useful. Same with Marx and Freud. Even if you reject their worldview and even if many of their ideas have been discredited, their approach to problems and the questions they raised inspired many for or against them. And even if Said way over-stated his case, there is more than a kernel of truth about Orientalism. With rise of neocon image of the Middle East via Hollywood and Zionist media -- a new Orientalism -- , it could be said that Said was prescient as well.

    Same is true of Heidegger. Even leftists who totally loathed his politics found his philosophy to be earth-shattering.

    One of the inspirations of thought is resistance and struggle. Marx lived in a capitalist world with many old structures still present. Freud too. There was the power and status quo for them to critique. But once communism prevailed in certain nations, Marxism went from interesting critique to mere state dogma. And what's the use of Freudianism in our age when all is porny, even at Disney? What use is sexual critique in a pornocracy? Pampered thinkers go soft.

    Homo thinkers like Foucault were interesting because they had the Power to struggle against. Now that homocracy is the thing, homos are more about keeping their privilege than asking provocative questions. Same with Jews. There are many smart Jews like in the past, but their main concern now is controlling free speech to keep their power.

    Also, the rise of identity politics undermined much of leftist thought. Classic leftist thought was about going beyond obstacles of culture and identity to arrive at deeper bonds of humanity or higher values to guide us all. But once identity became central, ideas and thought took a backseat to 'my people' or just 'myself'. When homos were in the closet, they had to think beyond homo-ness to appeal to all mankind. Now, homo thought wears high heels and just stares at the mirror and 'me, me, me'. There was a time when black thought was about proving that they are as good as whites and rest of humanity. Now, it's all about "We are better just becuz we be black." It's not about blacks being part of human justice but blackness = justice. It's lazy, narcissistic, and nihilist. By this logic, OJ is innocent, and blacks are always right just for being black.
    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts. Even those who insist race isn't real aren't doing so for universal humanism but to specifically to protect the feelings of blacks and serve the anxiety of Jews as both groups indulge in self-aggrandizement. Identity Politics altered the mode of leftist thought from macro-theory to micro-sensitivity. It went from grand theory to shake the world to pipsqueak complaints to avoid being triggered.
    Woke = Squeak.

    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts

    This is the “Regressive Left”- observation of Dave Rubin and Haidt/Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) about the actual state of the left’s affairs. See my comment No. 73 above.

    Douglas Murray and Michel Houellebecq have expressed a similar insight. Houellebecq with “Submission” and indirectly with “Sérotonine“, too, and Douglas Murray in “The Strange Death of Europe” when he hints at the exhaustion, that has taken hold of all of (old Western-Europe – and this is not only an intellectual exhaustion. This exhaustion runs deeper – it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources – the lack of oversight – – – Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It's really about attachment, affection, and commitment. For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. Ideas are interesting but ultimately abstract and unsatisfying. A dog provides more meaning in life through attachment. Better 'me and you and a dog named boo' than all those ideas.

    The sentiments of the song "Our House" should be enough.

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4WPvKGGR0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmRcP8S7Bo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9AXU2rWH88

    And Shane's advice is all one needs for a good life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoCw2iOTSc

    , @Anonymous

    This exhaustion runs deeper – it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources – the lack of oversight – – – Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    What is the cause of the alleged “exhaustion”?

    What does Haberman assert is the thing that people do not understand?
    , @Anonymous
    Do white people have an inner compass? If not, they will always follow the orders blasting from the megaphone.

    Or imagine you're in a forest and you don't have a compass. All you can do is follow the signs.
    But if you have a compass, you have a sense of direction independent of the signs. The compass says one thing, the signs say another. You go with the compass and distrust the signs.

    Jews have a compass. They lived in the Christian World where the signs were pro-Christian and anti-Jewish. Christians had the authority. But Jews had a compass directing their souls to Jerusalem even if not occupied by them and to their roots. So, even though Jews were surrounded by Christian signs in a Christian forest, their own compass kept them somewhat independent of goy authority and directions.

    But do whites have a compass? Or do they just go by the official signs? If the authority is pro-white and put up pro-white signs, this is not a problem. But if the authority becomes anti-white and put up anti-white signs, whites are in trouble without a compass of their own that alerts them to go with their own interests than the directives of the signs that are actually anti-white.

    Consider the politics of the watch in Skolimowki's MOONLIGHTING. Though Jeremy Irons character is fearful of Polish Communist authorities, he wields the power in the same way over the working crew. He and other Poles are illegally working in UK for a Polish boss. Jeremy Irons is the ONLY one with a watch, so he controls the time. Other men, having no watches of their own, go by Iron's time. So, even though they slept only 4 hrs, they could be made to believe they slept 6 hrs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5KlGsYyrqE

    Jews developed their own compass, their own clock regardless of the signs and official clock of the goy power. White people don't seem to have this. They have individualism, but individual freedom is never as powerful in the long run as official or collective 'truth'.
    TRUMAN SHOW is about a man who gradually comes to develop his own compass, own clock, and own rudder. Thus, he is able to find his way out and gain true independence, unlike the fake freedom inside the bubble. We live in a bubble that says 'free speech but no hate speech, with hate being defined by the Power'.
  151. @Anonymous
    Whether Rawls was right or not, it's irrelevant. He was a man of IDEAS whereas we are living in the of Age of Idolatry-Identity. Ideas matter far less than "Is it good for Jews, blacks, and homos?" When liberalism was riding high, people revolved around ideas. Its peak was the Civil Rights Movement when it seemed both decent whites and blacks were committed to the notion of equality and human rights for all Americans. But it wasn't long before Jews, blacks, and feminists put identity before ideas. And then, the homos really ran with this.
    Take Diversity. What kind of an idea is that? If diversity is great but if diverse peoples disagree in their views, interests, and IDEAS, what is The Idea to govern them all? In current West, we are told Diversity is great but Divisiveness is bad. Hello, DIVERSITY BREEDS DIVISIVENESS. So, how does such illogic and idiocy prevail? Because ideas are now secondary to identity-idolatry. Jews think diversity is good for their power, and THAT IS WHY we hear 'diversity is our strength'. Like him or not, Rawls was a real idea-man who believed in true commitment to ideas and principles(even if his weren't good in the end).

    Because Jews, blacks, and homos are special according to the reigning Identity-Idolatry, even non-Jews, non-blacks, and non-homos invoke or use Jewish symbols, black symbols, and/or homo symbols. Many churches now feel hollow unless they are associated with holy homos. To gain brownie points, people today are far less likely to make real arguments than show affiliation with one of the holy groups. Instead of 'God on our side', it's 'Jews, homos, or blacks on our side.'
    GOP the cuck party feels moral deficit unless it's all about serving Holy Jews and Israel. Even non-blacks go on and on about Mandela and BLM.
    One of the problems of leftist thought was that the ideas, even though universal and grandiose(and even inspired), had little bearing on reality. Marxism's scientific materialism wasn't all that scientific or data-based. Classic Liberalism ignored the reality of racial differences and human nature. Blacks are not whites with black skin, and whites are not blacks with white skin. There are deeper differences, and IDEAS alone will not fix problems. Still, leftism was still about ideas and principles based on universal goals. No longer. What now passes for 'leftism' is really about serving the vanity, egotism, megalomania, and/or supremacist narcissism of Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Another problem is the convergence of leftism and libertarianism. Some see libertarianism as essentially rightist, some see it as essentially leftist. There are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. But essentially, libertarianism in practice is about self-indulgence and decadence. Now, a man of conservative bent like Ron Paul can be libertarian. He's for liberty as individual freedom and responsibility. But given human nature, the rise of libertarianism doesn't foster responsibility but decadence and even degeneracy. Ron Paul says it should up for individuals to decide what drugs to use. What he ignores is that some drugs psychologically rob people of freedom. Someone who uses meth or heroin and becomes an addict no longer has free will. He's a mind-slave of the pusher. Also, the reason why people like Ron Paul use freedom responsibly is because they grew up in an America that used to be far more conservative, family-oriented, traditionalist, Christian, and even communitarian. Freedom is good, but it doesn't build character. Rather, character is built by other forces, and good character uses freedom well. This is why Ron Paul's been a family man and doesn't indulge in drugs. But what built his character? A libertarian order or a socially conservative order?

    Though leftism and libertarianism were both opposed to conservatism, it was for different reasons, and this is crucial. Libertarianism opposed conservatism as being too moralistic, judgmental, and intolerant. In contrast, leftism opposed conservatism as being not moralistic enough(or moralistic about the wrong things), not judgmental enough, and too tolerant of evil. Libertarians are into 'doing my thing' whereas leftists are into saving the world. Thus, if libertarians gripe that conservatives stand in the way of freedom in drugs and sex, leftists fume that conservatism fails to condemn and instead tolerates too much that is reactionary, prejudiced, bigoted, and wicked in the name of the Constitution and individual rights. Because the reasons for opposing conservatism was different among libertarians and leftists, it's a mistake to confuse libertarianism and leftism as some people do.

    That said, a kind of convergence between leftism and libertarianism happened, and we see most with rise of globo-homo. Libertarianism undermined conservatism with greater push for sex, drugs, and decadence in society and culture, esp pop culture, the only culture left standing that matters. Now, libertarians didn't push these things to be objects of new theology. They just wanted more liberty and freedom for individuals of all stripes to indulge themselves. Camille Paglia has been part of this wing of libertarianism. She never said we should worship homos or trannies or ponographers. Her point was that they, as individuals, should be free to indulge in that stuff. Let homos be totally homo as individuals.
    But what happened is that the 'new leftism' began to idealize and even sanctify the new degeneracy from an individual matter to a mass idolatry. So, it went from 'gay' liberty to 'gay' deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM. And there is now a push to decriminalize black thuggery in many areas because blackness is holy. So, it went from tolerating crazy black expression in pop music to glorifying black thuggery in real life. So, if blacks don't feel like paying fare on NY subway, white progs join in support of blacks because whatever blacks do, even crime, is sacrosanct. Libertarians pushed for more freedom in the name of individual liberty, but leftists took this increased freedom and turned them into a idolatrous dogma of neo-spirituality. It went from homos freed from religious intolerance to homos as the new face of christianity, what with so many churches flying the homo victory flag.

    Another problem that besets the current 'left' -- but this a problem in ANY ORDER -- is the level of sadistic bloodsport mentality that has gripped the movement. It's the difference between Patton and Omar Bradley in the movie. Bradley sees the evil of war but understands it's necessary to defeat the Axis. In contrast, Patton is in love with war, like Colonel Kilgore in APOCALYPSE NOW. It's almost like a blood sports to him. He wants even more war with the Soviet Union. He's a perpetual warrior. Such war fever can even grip those who are fearful of war. The men in BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES are happy to be back home, but they also feel bored and small back in their humdrum lives. They are not heroes anymore.

    It is a distinction made by George Romero in his zombie movies. There's a difference between fighting/killing zombies in order to survive and hunting down zombies as a sport. We sympathize with the characters in the movie because they are merely trying to survive. But when the clean-up crew arrives at the end, it's a bit disturbing because they seem to enjoy the sport of killing zombies. They are making a sport of it. It's the difference between a hunter who kills for food, which is bloody but justifiable as life consumes life AND the hunter who kills animals just for fun sport of it all. Likewise, there are soldiers who see war as necessary evil, and then there are war lovers who see war as a great opportunity to just blow things up. There's a scene in JARHEAD(dumb movie) where soldiers are shown the attack scene in APOCALYPSE NOW and cheering like mad at the sheer destruction. It was war-as-sport-and-spectacle mentality.

    https://youtu.be/4RLhTKSVr1o?t=25

    Among leftists, there were those who really believed in the cause and saw violence as a necessary evil to bring about a better order. But there were also those who really relished revolution as opportunity to indulge in bloodsport. Mao's Cultural Revolution was really more the latter. It gave young lunatics a chance to play rock-and-revolution by rampaging around and smashing everything in their path. Though shouting about justice, they couldn't get enough of the mayhem, sadism, and thrills.
    And this element of radicalism is very much alive in today's wokey hokey nonsense. Most of these people cannot be taken seriously. Whether it's deranged Antifa and BLM thugs in the streets or homo-nihilistist-narcissists and Jewish supremacists in the institutions, they revel in sadism, insanity, and nihilistic love of power. In this, Richard Spencer the faustian superman has something in common with them. They all sniff the movement like glue. It's all about fuming with the fumes. They don't just believe in sticking in the knife. They must twist it and then torture the body and burn it. Some of the anti-White TV shows really revel in a kind of bloodsport. One is called THE HUNT I hear.

    So, it went from ‘gay’ liberty to ‘gay’ deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM.

    Humanism and the leftist call for emancipation! are both in constant danger to become self-centered = self-aggrandizing / self-worshipping and thus regressive (=cruel, sadist, etc. – not least (that was one of the soft spots of the middle-aged Herbert Marcuse – the old one turned to – – -Goethe (and Dylan!) as antidotes to his earlier loftiness).

    (That is the systematic place of – – – theology, asceticism, wisdom, humor (cf. Goethe’s Faust and his Maxims and Rflections) etc.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    My namesake couldn't have said it better. That's why his Humanism was devoutly and properly Christian.

    “But there remains the question: what righteousness really is. The method and secret and sweet reasonableness of Jesus.”

    - Arnold
  152. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts
     
    This is the "Regressive Left"- observation of Dave Rubin and Haidt/Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) about the actual state of the left's affairs. See my comment No. 73 above.

    Douglas Murray and Michel Houellebecq have expressed a similar insight. Houellebecq with "Submission" and indirectly with "Sérotonine", too, and Douglas Murray in "The Strange Death of Europe" when he hints at the exhaustion, that has taken hold of all of (old Western-Europe - and this is not only an intellectual exhaustion. This exhaustion runs deeper - it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources - the lack of oversight - - - Habermas coined the term of "the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)" in the 80ies.

    Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.

    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment. For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. Ideas are interesting but ultimately abstract and unsatisfying. A dog provides more meaning in life through attachment. Better ‘me and you and a dog named boo’ than all those ideas.

    The sentiments of the song “Our House” should be enough.

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    And Shane’s advice is all one needs for a good life.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.
     

    For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory.
     
    Could you please suggest some reading material that support these two propositions?
    , @Corvinus
    "The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. "

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment.

    Fixed it for you.
    , @Dissident

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.
     
    Fifty dollars paid the rent,
    Girls were girls and men were men,
    Those were the days!

    Who, when listening to those words from the opening theme to the 1970's iconic sitcom All In The Family, could have imagined how foreboding they would prove to be?

  153. @Corvinus
    "I think you know that, in context, the writer meant the “woke” mindset."

    According to Who/Whom? Are today's normies supportive or opposed to "wokeness", or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?

    "And, Corvinus, I bet you respect Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Steve Gould, and lots of those old leftists, don’t you?"

    Respect and agree with wholeheartedly or in part are two separate things.

    "Chomsky, Said, and Gould had important things to say, both when they were right and when they were wrong."

    Wrong, according to their detractors.

    "Now, tell the truth: Did you really read through the entire passage Sailer quoted in his next post, word for word, without yawning, much less the whole essay by Rhea Boyd?"

    I read through it all. The point I am making is that there seems to be an intellectual pissing match between the Alt Right and leftists. Both sides assume Normies have a modicum of understanding the champions of thought they trot out and put on a pedestal. I mean, how many American whites could even explain the main ideas offered by Said, Chomsky, Gould, Boyd, Stoddard, Nietzsche, Yarvin, Sailer, Derbyshire, Vox Day, Molyneaux, and company? To what extent are these individuals even on the radar screen of Normies?

    "Today’s “woke” leftists…(yawn)."

    Again, according to Who/Whom?

    Corvinus asked me:

    Are today’s normies supportive or opposed to “wokeness”, or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?

    I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses.

    On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with Keynes:

    Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

    Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.

    Keynes is, by the way, one of those who was, in my opinion, often wrong but who still had important things to say.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses."

    That wasn't my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual. Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.

    "Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them."

    They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right "approve" of.
  154. @donut
    What use is a real smart Woke intellectual with domesticated live stock for an audience ?

    The clever ones have nothing but cattle as an audience?
    What a woke comment! I feel suitably chastised by your superior intellect, o Great Woke One. Me and my fellow ruminating beasts will just wander off out of your godly sight, shall we?

    • Replies: @donut
    No please don't . Stay and contribute more .
  155. @vhrm
    Our society is way too complex for any individual even a high IQ one to understand by themselves in detail.

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.

    In some aspects of the social sciences though, we seem to be in a regressive period at least in academia in the US. It's sad, but hopefully it's not forever.

    vhrm wrote:

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.

    Big Science first hit academic physics and for the last forty years it has not worked out well. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math or her website or Peter Woit’s website.

    Leo Sxilard predicted this, back when the National Science Foundation was created, in his satirical short story “The Mark Gable Foundation.”

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    Big Science first hit academic physics and for the last forty years it has not worked out well. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math or her website or Peter Woit’s website.
     
    Peter Woit website: Not Even Wrong

    Sabine Hossenfelder website: Backreaction
  156. @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    I think there’s a generational thing going on, as well. Who are The Stones or The Beatles of the current era? They don’t exist because the Media Market has exploded into a jillion sub-groupings since then.
    There’s no clear “leaders” ANYWHERE in a way that had an analogy in the 1970s. No #1 songs, no Sweeping Fashion Trends and no Public Intellectuals. The age of Leaders is over

    The same people who brought us the Stones and Beatles, namely the Tavistock Institute, a Rhodean-style genocidal thinkety-tank, now brings us thousands of toddlers on sex-change regime. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-gender diaspora. Their real achievement was the so-called Generation Gap, preventing grown-ups from teaching the children to laugh at the emperor’s outfit. That is why kids think they are “woke” everytime they run into a facet of real life that can be circumvented by “the right thinking’. Any actual action would probably offend someone, so, just don’t, okay? No-one was allowed to teach them otherwise, besides, education has been declared an “unsustainable activity” by all the most august of UN affilliates.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    Nice blog! Congrats!
  157. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts
     
    This is the "Regressive Left"- observation of Dave Rubin and Haidt/Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) about the actual state of the left's affairs. See my comment No. 73 above.

    Douglas Murray and Michel Houellebecq have expressed a similar insight. Houellebecq with "Submission" and indirectly with "Sérotonine", too, and Douglas Murray in "The Strange Death of Europe" when he hints at the exhaustion, that has taken hold of all of (old Western-Europe - and this is not only an intellectual exhaustion. This exhaustion runs deeper - it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources - the lack of oversight - - - Habermas coined the term of "the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)" in the 80ies.

    This exhaustion runs deeper – it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources – the lack of oversight – – – Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.

    What is the cause of the alleged “exhaustion”?

    What does Haberman assert is the thing that people do not understand?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    1) Douglas Murray names two major reason in his quite interesting book The Strange Death of Europe (2017) : That conservatism isn't conservative anymore. The other, maybe even bigger reason is: That there is a spiritual loss/ lack of spirituality/belief/ faith in Western cultures, which becomes more visible now, that Islam is taking hold of the public spheres in Western Europe.

    2) Jürgen Habermas saw something coming in the Eighties, which hardly anybody else even understood in its impressive society-changing power: The a.1) deterioration of the Old Left (concerned with "class-struggle" and - power) and a.2) the ascent of the New Left - the Woke and Green, the Postmaterialist Left, the Coalition of the Fringes Left in the footsteps not least of Herbert Marcuse's writings, but also in those of the deconstructivist/postmodern/postmaterialist thinkers like Paul de Man and Jaques Derrida and Deleuze/Guattari, Lyotard, Foucault, - and Heidegger and Nietzsche...
    The big book of Habermas about these changes is The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity - unsurpassed to this day (not even by Habermas' ca. 15 000+ pages of other writings! His latest tome This too a History of Philsophy, 2019, 1700 p. included).

  158. @Anonymous

    Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It's really about attachment, affection, and commitment. For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. Ideas are interesting but ultimately abstract and unsatisfying. A dog provides more meaning in life through attachment. Better 'me and you and a dog named boo' than all those ideas.

    The sentiments of the song "Our House" should be enough.

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4WPvKGGR0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmRcP8S7Bo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9AXU2rWH88

    And Shane's advice is all one needs for a good life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoCw2iOTSc

    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.

    For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory.

    Could you please suggest some reading material that support these two propositions?

  159. @Altai
    Steve makes a category mistake. Lots of woke people are very smart. They are simply pretending that policies that benefit themselves and their own group are ones that are only logical. Sometimes they lie or say inherently contradictory things to do this.

    Altai I argue along your lines of thought in No. 73.

  160. Deirdre McCloskey? S/he is not fully woke but highly intelligent and immensely silly in a postmodern way.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The autogynephilic ex-men are sort of the exception that proves the rule since they tend to have very high IQs. Most of them aren't true believers in Wokeness, they just ride the wave.
  161. @Philip Neal
    Deirdre McCloskey? S/he is not fully woke but highly intelligent and immensely silly in a postmodern way.

    The autogynephilic ex-men are sort of the exception that proves the rule since they tend to have very high IQs. Most of them aren’t true believers in Wokeness, they just ride the wave.

  162. @obwandiyag
    Well, you certainly ain't no intellectual, that is one thing we can agree on.

    That article on Said was completely utterly dumbass. It didn't say anything about anything. And it wasn't about Said.

    You are a complete tool fool and you can't write at-tall. I could out-write you with my ass.

    … and you can’t write at-tall.

    Excellent. I’ll borrow that.

  163. Dunno, enemies deserve no attention.

    Also, y’all should really pick up the word “autochauvinism”. Explains their worldview rather well.

  164. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Not that is a punchable face!
  165. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Idolatry of identity > validity of ideas and facts
     
    This is the "Regressive Left"- observation of Dave Rubin and Haidt/Lukianoff (The Coddling of the American Mind) about the actual state of the left's affairs. See my comment No. 73 above.

    Douglas Murray and Michel Houellebecq have expressed a similar insight. Houellebecq with "Submission" and indirectly with "Sérotonine", too, and Douglas Murray in "The Strange Death of Europe" when he hints at the exhaustion, that has taken hold of all of (old Western-Europe - and this is not only an intellectual exhaustion. This exhaustion runs deeper - it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources - the lack of oversight - - - Habermas coined the term of "the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)" in the 80ies.

    Do white people have an inner compass? If not, they will always follow the orders blasting from the megaphone.

    Or imagine you’re in a forest and you don’t have a compass. All you can do is follow the signs.
    But if you have a compass, you have a sense of direction independent of the signs. The compass says one thing, the signs say another. You go with the compass and distrust the signs.

    Jews have a compass. They lived in the Christian World where the signs were pro-Christian and anti-Jewish. Christians had the authority. But Jews had a compass directing their souls to Jerusalem even if not occupied by them and to their roots. So, even though Jews were surrounded by Christian signs in a Christian forest, their own compass kept them somewhat independent of goy authority and directions.

    But do whites have a compass? Or do they just go by the official signs? If the authority is pro-white and put up pro-white signs, this is not a problem. But if the authority becomes anti-white and put up anti-white signs, whites are in trouble without a compass of their own that alerts them to go with their own interests than the directives of the signs that are actually anti-white.

    Consider the politics of the watch in Skolimowki’s MOONLIGHTING. Though Jeremy Irons character is fearful of Polish Communist authorities, he wields the power in the same way over the working crew. He and other Poles are illegally working in UK for a Polish boss. Jeremy Irons is the ONLY one with a watch, so he controls the time. Other men, having no watches of their own, go by Iron’s time. So, even though they slept only 4 hrs, they could be made to believe they slept 6 hrs.

    Jews developed their own compass, their own clock regardless of the signs and official clock of the goy power. White people don’t seem to have this. They have individualism, but individual freedom is never as powerful in the long run as official or collective ‘truth’.
    TRUMAN SHOW is about a man who gradually comes to develop his own compass, own clock, and own rudder. Thus, he is able to find his way out and gain true independence, unlike the fake freedom inside the bubble. We live in a bubble that says ‘free speech but no hate speech, with hate being defined by the Power’.

    • Replies: @Thea
    The Protestant Reformation indicates that Europeans are perfectly capable of going against the widely accepted rules and forging a new path as an organized group.
  166. @Anonymous

    Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It's really about attachment, affection, and commitment. For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. Ideas are interesting but ultimately abstract and unsatisfying. A dog provides more meaning in life through attachment. Better 'me and you and a dog named boo' than all those ideas.

    The sentiments of the song "Our House" should be enough.

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4WPvKGGR0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmRcP8S7Bo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9AXU2rWH88

    And Shane's advice is all one needs for a good life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoCw2iOTSc

    “The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. ”

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment.

    Fixed it for you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment. Fixed it for you.
     
    No, you're turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of 'culmination of group of people...".

    Such abstraction is what kills it in actual life.

    Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing.
    It's like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit. Likewise, ideas must be part of life. If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it's about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes 'aliyah'.

    Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the 'essence' from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It's about BEING, not just understanding.

    Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it.
    , @BB753
    No, you ruined a great statement, turning it on its head.
  167. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus asked me:

    Are today’s normies supportive or opposed to “wokeness”, or do they even know what it constitutes? Morever, is it not probable that they have their own ideologies they adhere to?
     
    I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses.

    On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with Keynes:

    Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
     
    Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the "academic scribblers," but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.

    Keynes is, by the way, one of those who was, in my opinion, often wrong but who still had important things to say.

    “I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses.”

    That wasn’t my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual. Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.

    “Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.”

    They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right “approve” of.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus replied to me:

    That wasn’t my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual.
     
    True enough, but the "normies" themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be "intellectuals,' and indeed do not consider themselves to have an "ideology," which nowadays is a smear term.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.
     
    Sure. What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about: that partly explains why Trump won.

    As I have posted repeatedly here, I myself think they are only partly right: I think free trade is generally beneficial and, while I agree that we cannot practically have unlimited immigration, I do not think immigration is a primary cause of current social problems. I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.

    Recognition of that fact is one strain of the Trumpian revolt, but so far there has been minimal action to reverse and restructure the degradation of our society.

    On all this, by the way, I agree with the leftist Dave Graeber: see his recent books Bullshit Jobs and The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. I think you'd like Graeber's books: I urge you to get a copy.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.”

    [Corvinus]They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right “approve” of.
     
    Quite: I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!

    See, Corvinus, how unz.com brings people together? You, me, Dave Graeber, the ordinary Trump supporters, all working together to understand the social problematique in which we find ourselves.

    unz-com -- the diverse center of transgressive discourse on the post-modern problematique.
  168. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. "

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment.

    Fixed it for you.

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment. Fixed it for you.

    No, you’re turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of ‘culmination of group of people…”.

    Such abstraction is what kills it in actual life.

    Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing.
    It’s like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit. Likewise, ideas must be part of life. If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it’s about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes ‘aliyah’.

    Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the ‘essence’ from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It’s about BEING, not just understanding.

    Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The Word Made Flesh
    , @Corvinus
    "No, you’re turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of ‘culmination of group of people…”"

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.

    "Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "It’s like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit."

    What?

    "If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it’s about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes ‘aliyah’."

    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the "real meaning" of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.

    "Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the ‘essence’ from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It’s about BEING, not just understanding."

    Who stated otherwise?

    "Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it."

    Again, what?
  169. @Corvinus
    "The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It’s really about attachment, affection, and commitment.For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. "

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment.

    Fixed it for you.

    No, you ruined a great statement, turning it on its head.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    What exactly made anony's statement "great" from your perspective? Please be specific.
  170. @PhysicistDave
    vhrm wrote:

    Reasoning along the lines of your argument leads me back to some form of collectivism with specialization.

    That is, of course, what we have. In some places it works fine. e.g. in science and technology things have been moving forward really fast.
     
    Big Science first hit academic physics and for the last forty years it has not worked out well. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math or her website or Peter Woit's website.

    Leo Sxilard predicted this, back when the National Science Foundation was created, in his satirical short story "The Mark Gable Foundation."

    Big Science first hit academic physics and for the last forty years it has not worked out well. Check out Sabine Hossenfelder’s Lost in Math or her website or Peter Woit’s website.

    Peter Woit website: Not Even Wrong

    Sabine Hossenfelder website: Backreaction

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  171. We live in a world based on feels now.

    The smart woke folk are behind the scenes running the marketing and political machinations.

    Since nobody bases their worldviews on logical “arguments” anymore, there is no need for smart woke to serve a role as intellectuals. In fact, that would be counterproductive, since propping up a world of logical arguments (through participation) would undermine the feels universe they have created.

    One thing they did not expect, though, is for someone like Trump to come along and beat them at their own game.

  172. @Reg Cæsar
    His "What's the Word From Johannesburg" was one of the worst things I ever heard on those midnight concert shows of the '70s. Not a career I wanted to follow.

    On the Midnight Special, ca. 1978. Don’t remember the man, but remember the performance. Didn’t realize Wolfman Jack died in 1995.

  173. Paul Krugman

    Sergei Brynn

  174. @Anonymous
    Do white people have an inner compass? If not, they will always follow the orders blasting from the megaphone.

    Or imagine you're in a forest and you don't have a compass. All you can do is follow the signs.
    But if you have a compass, you have a sense of direction independent of the signs. The compass says one thing, the signs say another. You go with the compass and distrust the signs.

    Jews have a compass. They lived in the Christian World where the signs were pro-Christian and anti-Jewish. Christians had the authority. But Jews had a compass directing their souls to Jerusalem even if not occupied by them and to their roots. So, even though Jews were surrounded by Christian signs in a Christian forest, their own compass kept them somewhat independent of goy authority and directions.

    But do whites have a compass? Or do they just go by the official signs? If the authority is pro-white and put up pro-white signs, this is not a problem. But if the authority becomes anti-white and put up anti-white signs, whites are in trouble without a compass of their own that alerts them to go with their own interests than the directives of the signs that are actually anti-white.

    Consider the politics of the watch in Skolimowki's MOONLIGHTING. Though Jeremy Irons character is fearful of Polish Communist authorities, he wields the power in the same way over the working crew. He and other Poles are illegally working in UK for a Polish boss. Jeremy Irons is the ONLY one with a watch, so he controls the time. Other men, having no watches of their own, go by Iron's time. So, even though they slept only 4 hrs, they could be made to believe they slept 6 hrs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5KlGsYyrqE

    Jews developed their own compass, their own clock regardless of the signs and official clock of the goy power. White people don't seem to have this. They have individualism, but individual freedom is never as powerful in the long run as official or collective 'truth'.
    TRUMAN SHOW is about a man who gradually comes to develop his own compass, own clock, and own rudder. Thus, he is able to find his way out and gain true independence, unlike the fake freedom inside the bubble. We live in a bubble that says 'free speech but no hate speech, with hate being defined by the Power'.

    The Protestant Reformation indicates that Europeans are perfectly capable of going against the widely accepted rules and forging a new path as an organized group.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Good example.
  175. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666
    Wokeness doesn't really have any heavyweight intellectual leaders because it's the opposite of intellectual.

    It is just a set of subjective, alogical preferences. In particular: Male/straight/white/western = Bad; Female/queer/POC/non-western = Good.

    You simply don't need deep intellectual insights or leaders to chant mantras. Instead, wokeness spreads by shouting louder and more often, and by silencing the opposition. Not by persuasion and intellectual philosophizing.

    The closest thing to Woke intellectualism might be those academics who coin jargon based on talking about their own feelings. Like the woman who coined the term "white privilege" based on her imagining that she had a "magical backpack" (or whatever) full of such stuff.

    It's almost too lame to count as an ideology, much less an intellectual movement.

    In short, it's only "leaders" are morons on Twitter and hacks at the NYT and Vox. Serious intellectuals are entirely superfluous.

    Wokeness doesn’t really have any heavyweight intellectual leaders because it’s the opposite of intellectual.

    Woke seems to mean where your main commitment is to the cause than the truth.

    So, a thinker/writer can be liberal-leaning or left-leaning but still not be ‘woke’. He could be trying to find the truth, albeit with liberal bias. Or he could be making a rational and factual argument for his liberal values. In contrast, Woke thinking puts passion/commitment before everything. Or, its theory is so limited to ONE particular idea that it is incapable of seeing the world outside that mental box.

    Gladwell is often wrong, but he thinks he’s thinking and lays out his case. So, he’s not ‘woke’. Neither is Florida with the ‘creative class’ or Acemoglu with his theory of good governance. They leave out certain key factors due to PC, bias, or dogmatism, but they still believe themselves to be thinking through what they present.

    In contrast, wokesters believe they know what is and must be because of identity, passion, or radical narrowness of their worldview. Because they don’t think, they easily fall under the sway of certain militant ideas. They think it’s new and original when it may be trite.
    Take ‘intersectionality’. This is the oldest idea in the world. Uniting on common interests against the enemy. Nixon understood when he moved toward Red China against the USSR. One bunch of Europeans sometimes sided with Tartars or Turks against other Europeans. Romans made pacts with certain Germanic barbarians against other Germanic barbarians. And yet, just by tagging a new label on it — ‘intersectional’ –, it’s hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  176. @Dieter Kief

    So, it went from ‘gay’ liberty to ‘gay’ deity. It went from tolerating black thuggery in pop culture(esp rap) to elevating black thuggery as holy with BLM.
     
    Humanism and the leftist call for emancipation! are both in constant danger to become self-centered = self-aggrandizing / self-worshipping and thus regressive (=cruel, sadist, etc. - not least (that was one of the soft spots of the middle-aged Herbert Marcuse - the old one turned to - - -Goethe (and Dylan!) as antidotes to his earlier loftiness).

    (That is the systematic place of - - - theology, asceticism, wisdom, humor (cf. Goethe's Faust and his Maxims and Rflections) etc.

    My namesake couldn’t have said it better. That’s why his Humanism was devoutly and properly Christian.

    “But there remains the question: what righteousness really is. The method and secret and sweet reasonableness of Jesus.”

    – Arnold

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enDE754DE754&sxsrf=ACYBGNRtBCHDed2bqLtPitgBSD_TWJZjkA:1578952103370&q=haus+zum+walfisch+freiburg&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdh_T5xoHnAhWM_KQKHRPbB4sQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1022&bih=515#imgrc=GpRNezioA35tOM: 

    We're All Particles of Changes / Orbiting Around the Sun (these are the Seventies again - Joni Mitchell - Hejira...).

    Oh - thanks! The post you commented on was the one I forgot after I had written it.

    - Desiderius lived amongst us Alemani for 20 years between 1514 and 1536  in Basel and Freiburg - in Freiburg in the above linked Haus zum Walfisch (The Whale House)  - owned by the communal bank Die Sparkasse, which is in dire straits now because of the hazardous negative interest rates of the European Central Bank... - it's still true what Friedrich Schelling once remarked: The damn things ALL hang together...

    Desiderius traveled from Freiburg into the Black Forest at times, because he was engaged in the Whichcraft-detecting-business. He rather studied those affairs though, than taking on some kind of action other than making hesitant remarks about what he himself saw and thought while experiencing these things from up close. - Reminds me of the Fred Feuerstein comic strip Friedrich Kambartel had at his office door in the eighties: A knight, while being on the lookout post is asked, whether the enemies are nearing - and his answer, to the perfect dismay of everybody else, is: Could be, but could also not be!  - And the moral of this story, according to Fred Feuerstein: You don't want to have philosophers on the lookout post!
  177. @Anonymous

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment. Fixed it for you.
     
    No, you're turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of 'culmination of group of people...".

    Such abstraction is what kills it in actual life.

    Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing.
    It's like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit. Likewise, ideas must be part of life. If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it's about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes 'aliyah'.

    Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the 'essence' from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It's about BEING, not just understanding.

    Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it.

    The Word Made Flesh

  178. Deleuze (1925 – 1995) is much cited. Too old and too dead for ‘woke’, but his name comes up here and there among the progs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze

  179. @Thea
    The Protestant Reformation indicates that Europeans are perfectly capable of going against the widely accepted rules and forging a new path as an organized group.

    Good example.

  180. @Anonymous

    For example, suppose the Social Democrats came to power in Germany — and installed a radical socialist regime and — being Germans — made it work.
     
    But social democrats were for compromise and gradual move toward socialism.

    Or leftist element might have merged with rightist element, as with Italian Fascism and National Socialism. And Peronism.

    Without the backing of the Soviet Union and historical accidents, it's difficult to see communism spreading anywhere. Cuban communism would have been doomed without Soviet support. And even though Mao lucked out from WWII and Japanese invasion, he also got key support from Soviets who provided sanctuary in Yenan(then effectively controlled by Soviets) and later took over North China from the Japanese, handing the vast territories to Mao.

    And Ho Chi Minh wouldn't have had a chance without Soviets and Red China backing him.

    ‘… But social democrats were for compromise and gradual move toward socialism….’

    Post-World War Two, sure. But pre-war, while they notoriously didn’t walk the walk, they definitely talked the talk.

    Anyway, I don’t think it can be assumed that absent the Russian Revolution, revolutionary socialism just politely goes away. There were revolutionary or potentially revolutionary groups all over the place. Here in the US, for example, there was the IWW, and Eugene V. Debs running for President while in prison. Just look at the abortive socialist republics that were sparked by the Russian example.

    It’s like when you have a hot, dry summer, and lots of fuel. You’re likely to get a fire, somewhere, at some point. If it hadn’t happened as it did, it might have happened some other way. Germany wins the war, and revolution breaks out in France. Who knows?

  181. . Metrollectual: “One who adopts the mannerisms, attire and behaviour of an intellectual, without actually ever thinking for themselves.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/354532/

  182. @Anonymous

    Civilization is the culmination of a group of people who have ideas about family, community, and memory about how to organize a society through attachment, affection, and commitment. Fixed it for you.
     
    No, you're turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of 'culmination of group of people...".

    Such abstraction is what kills it in actual life.

    Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing.
    It's like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit. Likewise, ideas must be part of life. If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it's about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes 'aliyah'.

    Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the 'essence' from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It's about BEING, not just understanding.

    Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it.

    “No, you’re turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of ‘culmination of group of people…””

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.

    “Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    “It’s like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit.”

    What?

    “If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it’s about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes ‘aliyah’.”

    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the “real meaning” of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.

    “Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the ‘essence’ from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It’s about BEING, not just understanding.”

    Who stated otherwise?

    “Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it.”

    Again, what?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.
     
    No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins. One must know the basic contours of that, but existence is not about thinking but about attachment, affection, feeling. When the West was secure and safe, most people didn't think much about anything. They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking.

    Also, it's not a matter of 'where they want to go'. That is what's destroying the West. There is no way to go. What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve. Now, technology changes, but people and culture are about preservation and 'staying' where you are, not GOING somewhere.


    What?
     
    Ideas are like chemicals abstracted from the source. It works in a chemistry lab to create certain chemicals, but life is not a chemistry lab. Why is whole wheat flour better than white flour? White flour leaves out all the fiber. Why are fruits better than sugar? Why are coca leaves less dangerous than purified cocaine? It's not just intellectuals who seek to purify aspects of humanity. Pop culture does this with sensations. It's like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest. It's immediately pleasing to the eye and ear but comes with no substance. Worse it addicts people to immediate sensation and makes them reject whatever doesn't give them the immediate jolt.
    Just like sugar for the body is a killer, pop culture is killer of the soul. This is why sugary desserts or snacks are OKAY on the side but must never be the main course. Same with pop culture. Some on the side as entertainment is okay, but as MAIN CULTURE it is deadly, leading to diabetes of the soul and cavities of the mind. But that is the state of globalist culture. It's one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture. They fixate on fake light than the sun. In the movie SUNSHINE, the sun is dying and mankind must regenerate it to survive. Likewise, the West must regenerate its own sun and stop gazing at the false light of pop culture. Or replant one's culture in the soil, that is if its roots haven't yet been cut off.

    Granted, if some intellectuals extract the potency and leave out the body, others leave out the potency in favor of self-denial as virtue. It's hedonism vs puritanism. Social Justice types are really moral-hedonists who love getting high on moral outrage. They are predatory in their constant bloodthirst. Or they are like sugar junkies who just gotta have another bite of moral smugness.
    But then, there are the puritanical types who feel ANY pleasure is sinful, leading to a kind of mental veganism. We see such types among certain film critics who always praise films without 'conventionality' of characters, plot, and pacing. They go for films where apparently nothing happens... as in JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst crap ever made. It's almost as if they regard anything that is naturally appealing to the audience is like red meat, something to be avoided. Richard Brody is a cultural vegan who praises even the dullest Godard films that are without characters, story, plot, drama, and other good stuff that make art entertaining. It's like pretending that a meal of dry celery flakes and NO PROTEIN is virtuous. So, if some progs act like bloody predators or sugar-junkies who must have meat or sugar all the time, others are like herbivores who refuse to touch anything red-blooded and meaty. Both modes are a way of death and destruction. No sense of balance.

    Just like theory without practice is worthless, ideas separated from the body are useless. But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas -- 'race isn't real', 'diversity is strength', etc -- that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. At least extracted ideas have some relation to reality as source, even if simplified and abstracted. Today's PC ideas are fantasies cooked inside the lab out of thin air.


    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the “real meaning” of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.
     
    Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning. They prefer SUPERMAN movies, especially since the rise of youth culture that destroyed patience among the audience.

    We can argue about the meaning of movies, but what makes a particular movie great is not in the meaning. After all, so many movies have the same ideas, similar messages, similar situations, and etc. What really matters is ALL OF IT. Compare Alfonso Arau's MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS which is longer and fuller than Welles' butchered version. In the abstract, they have the same themes and conflicts, but one totally sucks while the other is great even in its butchered form. So, greatness goes beyond ideas or meaning, what Sontag talked about in AGAINST INTERPRETATION.
    If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families. We can find common themes of love, family problems, and etc. And yet, one's own family means so much while you wouldn't much care if another family died in an airplane crash. We read news of people dying every day all over the world, but they don't affect us. We know it's sad, but their passing doesn't feel like end of the world. Yet, losing one's own profoundly affect us. So, there is more to life than about meaning and themes. We can and should think about life and seek meaning, but the FEELING exists before any such thought. Ideas remind us of what all families have in common, but feeling reminds us that each family is unique and special.
    And too much thinking can lead to over-abstraction that cuts us from existence and feeling. Look at the fools in SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE by Bergman. I feel like saying, "Why don't you kiss her instead of talking her to death?" Why is the couple in WILD STRAWBERRIES having trouble? They think too much. The silly hubber has to THINK about why he should or shouldn't have kids. (Or consider the two idiots in BEFORE MIDNIGHT. Why don't they just shut up and just live?) In Bergman's films, there is the life force that just wants to create and live(and celebrate life at time), and the death force that sows doubt and doom in the hearts of men and women. Best is the balance of two. The craziest thing about our world is there is actually a CELEBRATION of the death of the West and white folks -- Hey!! Europeans aren't having kids, and that's so farout groovy!! -- , and CELEBRATION of the life of the OTHER -- again, Hey!! Europe is gonna be Africanized and that's gonna be great!!

    https://youtu.be/gJ2cQQfvcdk?t=91

  183. @BB753
    No, you ruined a great statement, turning it on its head.

    What exactly made anony’s statement “great” from your perspective? Please be specific.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Please read it yourself.
  184. the number of vox and the atlantic writers that arent jewish can’t fill a fiat

  185. I can’t fird the source anymore, but I remember reading an article talking about how every policy from the left to correct “inequality” is basically directed to put suffering on the lives of white people from mid and lower-mid classes while dont changing anything people from the elites:

    sin taxes, including those related to the environment
    racial quotas of any kind
    zoning laws that restricts suburbs, but not those REALLY wealthy suburbs (malibu, etc)

    if you’re a man, of course, there’s more stuff related to women taking the space of men in public and private jobs, etc.
    ——————
    I can blame the right as well: “school choice” is putting football players into once affordable high schools.
    and, both right and left, and maybe the most meaningful: anything related to immigration

  186. @MikeatMikedotMike
    https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screen-Shot-2018-01-03-at-2.18.01-PM.png

    Not that is a punchable face!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I thought it was a kiwifruit.
  187. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "No, you’re turning the matter of the heart into a sociology text. Imagine a people thinking about his family and roots in terms of ‘culmination of group of people…”"

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.

    "Intellectualism is necessary but it has the effect of removing the body and soul of the thing."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "It’s like extracting sugar from fruit. But sugar alone is a killer. Sweetness is good when part of the fruit."

    What?

    "If we sociologize THE GODFATHER, we can say it’s about tribalism and capitalism. But the real meaning comes from being part of the Corleones and the sights and sounds of Sicily when Michael makes ‘aliyah’."

    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the "real meaning" of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.

    "Intellectuals are like pharmaceutical science. They extract the ‘essence’ from the raw material, and what they do is necessary within the academic setting to better understand certain aspects of the world. But life itself needs the blood and body. It’s about BEING, not just understanding."

    Who stated otherwise?

    "Life is where the essence is part of the body. It is intrinsic to the body than extracted from it."

    Again, what?

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.

    No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins. One must know the basic contours of that, but existence is not about thinking but about attachment, affection, feeling. When the West was secure and safe, most people didn’t think much about anything. They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking.

    Also, it’s not a matter of ‘where they want to go’. That is what’s destroying the West. There is no way to go. What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve. Now, technology changes, but people and culture are about preservation and ‘staying’ where you are, not GOING somewhere.

    What?

    Ideas are like chemicals abstracted from the source. It works in a chemistry lab to create certain chemicals, but life is not a chemistry lab. Why is whole wheat flour better than white flour? White flour leaves out all the fiber. Why are fruits better than sugar? Why are coca leaves less dangerous than purified cocaine? It’s not just intellectuals who seek to purify aspects of humanity. Pop culture does this with sensations. It’s like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest. It’s immediately pleasing to the eye and ear but comes with no substance. Worse it addicts people to immediate sensation and makes them reject whatever doesn’t give them the immediate jolt.
    Just like sugar for the body is a killer, pop culture is killer of the soul. This is why sugary desserts or snacks are OKAY on the side but must never be the main course. Same with pop culture. Some on the side as entertainment is okay, but as MAIN CULTURE it is deadly, leading to diabetes of the soul and cavities of the mind. But that is the state of globalist culture. It’s one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture. They fixate on fake light than the sun. In the movie SUNSHINE, the sun is dying and mankind must regenerate it to survive. Likewise, the West must regenerate its own sun and stop gazing at the false light of pop culture. Or replant one’s culture in the soil, that is if its roots haven’t yet been cut off.

    Granted, if some intellectuals extract the potency and leave out the body, others leave out the potency in favor of self-denial as virtue. It’s hedonism vs puritanism. Social Justice types are really moral-hedonists who love getting high on moral outrage. They are predatory in their constant bloodthirst. Or they are like sugar junkies who just gotta have another bite of moral smugness.
    But then, there are the puritanical types who feel ANY pleasure is sinful, leading to a kind of mental veganism. We see such types among certain film critics who always praise films without ‘conventionality’ of characters, plot, and pacing. They go for films where apparently nothing happens… as in JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst crap ever made. It’s almost as if they regard anything that is naturally appealing to the audience is like red meat, something to be avoided. Richard Brody is a cultural vegan who praises even the dullest Godard films that are without characters, story, plot, drama, and other good stuff that make art entertaining. It’s like pretending that a meal of dry celery flakes and NO PROTEIN is virtuous. So, if some progs act like bloody predators or sugar-junkies who must have meat or sugar all the time, others are like herbivores who refuse to touch anything red-blooded and meaty. Both modes are a way of death and destruction. No sense of balance.

    Just like theory without practice is worthless, ideas separated from the body are useless. But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas — ‘race isn’t real’, ‘diversity is strength’, etc — that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. At least extracted ideas have some relation to reality as source, even if simplified and abstracted. Today’s PC ideas are fantasies cooked inside the lab out of thin air.

    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the “real meaning” of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.

    Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning. They prefer SUPERMAN movies, especially since the rise of youth culture that destroyed patience among the audience.

    We can argue about the meaning of movies, but what makes a particular movie great is not in the meaning. After all, so many movies have the same ideas, similar messages, similar situations, and etc. What really matters is ALL OF IT. Compare Alfonso Arau’s MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS which is longer and fuller than Welles’ butchered version. In the abstract, they have the same themes and conflicts, but one totally sucks while the other is great even in its butchered form. So, greatness goes beyond ideas or meaning, what Sontag talked about in AGAINST INTERPRETATION.
    If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families. We can find common themes of love, family problems, and etc. And yet, one’s own family means so much while you wouldn’t much care if another family died in an airplane crash. We read news of people dying every day all over the world, but they don’t affect us. We know it’s sad, but their passing doesn’t feel like end of the world. Yet, losing one’s own profoundly affect us. So, there is more to life than about meaning and themes. We can and should think about life and seek meaning, but the FEELING exists before any such thought. Ideas remind us of what all families have in common, but feeling reminds us that each family is unique and special.
    And too much thinking can lead to over-abstraction that cuts us from existence and feeling. Look at the fools in SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE by Bergman. I feel like saying, “Why don’t you kiss her instead of talking her to death?” Why is the couple in WILD STRAWBERRIES having trouble? They think too much. The silly hubber has to THINK about why he should or shouldn’t have kids. (Or consider the two idiots in BEFORE MIDNIGHT. Why don’t they just shut up and just live?) In Bergman’s films, there is the life force that just wants to create and live(and celebrate life at time), and the death force that sows doubt and doom in the hearts of men and women. Best is the balance of two. The craziest thing about our world is there is actually a CELEBRATION of the death of the West and white folks — Hey!! Europeans aren’t having kids, and that’s so farout groovy!! — , and CELEBRATION of the life of the OTHER — again, Hey!! Europe is gonna be Africanized and that’s gonna be great!!

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Corvinus is a venal and false guy...he cares about nothing- don't waste your time with venal and apocalyptic people.
    , @Corvinus
    "No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins."

    You are now taking it to an extreme here. People back then and now do not act in the manner by which you are claiming. Assuredly, we all think from time to time about where we came from, but it does not dominate our lives.

    "When the West was secure and safe, most people didn’t think much about anything."

    Assuming that the West is other than safe and secure, and assuming that people generally view themselves as "Westerners".

    "They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking."

    "That is what’s destroying the West. There is no way to go."

    Assuming the West is being destroyed, and assuming that people generally view themselves as Westerners.

    "What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve."

    Which requires analysis, i.e. thinking.

    "Pop culture does this with sensations. It’s like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest."

    From your perspective. But our mass culture has also enabled people to be creative through their ideas which others find to be substantive in nature.

    "It’s one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture."

    Sources to back up your claim?

    "But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas — ‘race isn’t real’, ‘diversity is strength’, etc — that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. "

    I would say your version of reality is different based upon your ideas on how the world ought to operate compared to other people.

    "Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning."

    First, what evidence do you have that proves this assertion?

    Second, are you saying that you are able to "extrapolate any meaning" compared to others? If yes, what gives you this unique ability?

    "If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families."

    Which is observably true.
  188. @Corvinus
    What exactly made anony's statement "great" from your perspective? Please be specific.

    Please read it yourself.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Please read it yourself."

    I did read it. I didn't have the same reaction as yourself. Now, what exactly made anony’s statement “great” from your perspective? Please be specific.
  189. @Desiderius
    My namesake couldn't have said it better. That's why his Humanism was devoutly and properly Christian.

    “But there remains the question: what righteousness really is. The method and secret and sweet reasonableness of Jesus.”

    - Arnold

    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enDE754DE754&sxsrf=ACYBGNRtBCHDed2bqLtPitgBSD_TWJZjkA:1578952103370&q=haus+zum+walfisch+freiburg&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdh_T5xoHnAhWM_KQKHRPbB4sQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1022&bih=515#imgrc=GpRNezioA35tOM: 

    We’re All Particles of Changes / Orbiting Around the Sun (these are the Seventies again – Joni Mitchell – Hejira…).

    Oh – thanks! The post you commented on was the one I forgot after I had written it.

    – Desiderius lived amongst us Alemani for 20 years between 1514 and 1536  in Basel and Freiburg – in Freiburg in the above linked Haus zum Walfisch (The Whale House)  – owned by the communal bank Die Sparkasse, which is in dire straits now because of the hazardous negative interest rates of the European Central Bank… – it’s still true what Friedrich Schelling once remarked: The damn things ALL hang together…

    Desiderius traveled from Freiburg into the Black Forest at times, because he was engaged in the Whichcraft-detecting-business. He rather studied those affairs though, than taking on some kind of action other than making hesitant remarks about what he himself saw and thought while experiencing these things from up close. – Reminds me of the Fred Feuerstein comic strip Friedrich Kambartel had at his office door in the eighties: A knight, while being on the lookout post is asked, whether the enemies are nearing – and his answer, to the perfect dismay of everybody else, is: Could be, but could also not be!  – And the moral of this story, according to Fred Feuerstein: You don’t want to have philosophers on the lookout post!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Aye, indeed not. Our minds tend to wander.

    Evidently your land currently suffers from a surfeit of philosophers and a paucity of kings. Though perhaps more accurately philosophisters, present company excluded.

    If negative interests rates can't get them off of their asses nothing will.
  190. @Reg Cæsar

    “Beatles” and “Stones” were a 100% artificially manufactured social engineering project.
     
    As were Bach, Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven, and all those other composers surviving on sinecures. Puppets of the Esterhazys!

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra's early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank's entire career was a fraud. Why anybody listens to him... what am I saying? Nobody listens to him anymore.

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra’s early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank’s entire career was a fraud.

    I appreciate the point you have made through sarcasm. Still, I must ask, would you entirely deny the contention that Sinatra was overrated? Do you not think that Bing Crosby, for example, was more worthy of the fame that Sinatra enjoyed?

    I am not the only one who finds much more depth, soul, and range in Crosby’s singing than in Sinatra’s.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I am not the only one who finds much more depth, soul, and range in Crosby’s singing than in Sinatra’s.
     
    Bennett is more my guy. I have his album of Sinatra songs, which I can finally enjoy without Frank's connotations. If I appreciate Sinatra for anything, it's for keeping Jimmy Van Heusen employed all those years.

    The names in parentheses below the title have always been more important to me than the performers.
  191. @Anonymous

    Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    The mistake is there, that civilization is about ideas or understanding. It's really about attachment, affection, and commitment. For most of Western Civilization, most people found meaning in family, community, and memory. Most were not educated in ideas. Ideas are interesting but ultimately abstract and unsatisfying. A dog provides more meaning in life through attachment. Better 'me and you and a dog named boo' than all those ideas.

    The sentiments of the song "Our House" should be enough.

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4WPvKGGR0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmRcP8S7Bo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9AXU2rWH88

    And Shane's advice is all one needs for a good life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoCw2iOTSc

    More truth in these TV intros than all the intellectual stuff as far as life is concerned.

    Fifty dollars paid the rent,
    Girls were girls and men were men,
    Those were the days!

    Who, when listening to those words from the opening theme to the 1970’s iconic sitcom All In The Family, could have imagined how foreboding they would prove to be?

  192. @Dissident

    The first teenage girls to swoon and faint at Frank Sinatra’s early shows were paid to do so by his publicist. Thus, Frank’s entire career was a fraud.
     
    I appreciate the point you have made through sarcasm. Still, I must ask, would you entirely deny the contention that Sinatra was overrated? Do you not think that Bing Crosby, for example, was more worthy of the fame that Sinatra enjoyed?

    I am not the only one who finds much more depth, soul, and range in Crosby's singing than in Sinatra's.

    I am not the only one who finds much more depth, soul, and range in Crosby’s singing than in Sinatra’s.

    Bennett is more my guy. I have his album of Sinatra songs, which I can finally enjoy without Frank’s connotations. If I appreciate Sinatra for anything, it’s for keeping Jimmy Van Heusen employed all those years.

    The names in parentheses below the title have always been more important to me than the performers.

    • Thanks: Dissident
  193. @Jim Don Bob
    Not that is a punchable face!

    I thought it was a kiwifruit.

  194. @BB753
    Please read it yourself.

    “Please read it yourself.”

    I did read it. I didn’t have the same reaction as yourself. Now, what exactly made anony’s statement “great” from your perspective? Please be specific.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Sir, you are a sophist.
  195. no. it is all too late for kids to change sides.

  196. @Anonymous

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.
     
    No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins. One must know the basic contours of that, but existence is not about thinking but about attachment, affection, feeling. When the West was secure and safe, most people didn't think much about anything. They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking.

    Also, it's not a matter of 'where they want to go'. That is what's destroying the West. There is no way to go. What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve. Now, technology changes, but people and culture are about preservation and 'staying' where you are, not GOING somewhere.


    What?
     
    Ideas are like chemicals abstracted from the source. It works in a chemistry lab to create certain chemicals, but life is not a chemistry lab. Why is whole wheat flour better than white flour? White flour leaves out all the fiber. Why are fruits better than sugar? Why are coca leaves less dangerous than purified cocaine? It's not just intellectuals who seek to purify aspects of humanity. Pop culture does this with sensations. It's like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest. It's immediately pleasing to the eye and ear but comes with no substance. Worse it addicts people to immediate sensation and makes them reject whatever doesn't give them the immediate jolt.
    Just like sugar for the body is a killer, pop culture is killer of the soul. This is why sugary desserts or snacks are OKAY on the side but must never be the main course. Same with pop culture. Some on the side as entertainment is okay, but as MAIN CULTURE it is deadly, leading to diabetes of the soul and cavities of the mind. But that is the state of globalist culture. It's one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture. They fixate on fake light than the sun. In the movie SUNSHINE, the sun is dying and mankind must regenerate it to survive. Likewise, the West must regenerate its own sun and stop gazing at the false light of pop culture. Or replant one's culture in the soil, that is if its roots haven't yet been cut off.

    Granted, if some intellectuals extract the potency and leave out the body, others leave out the potency in favor of self-denial as virtue. It's hedonism vs puritanism. Social Justice types are really moral-hedonists who love getting high on moral outrage. They are predatory in their constant bloodthirst. Or they are like sugar junkies who just gotta have another bite of moral smugness.
    But then, there are the puritanical types who feel ANY pleasure is sinful, leading to a kind of mental veganism. We see such types among certain film critics who always praise films without 'conventionality' of characters, plot, and pacing. They go for films where apparently nothing happens... as in JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst crap ever made. It's almost as if they regard anything that is naturally appealing to the audience is like red meat, something to be avoided. Richard Brody is a cultural vegan who praises even the dullest Godard films that are without characters, story, plot, drama, and other good stuff that make art entertaining. It's like pretending that a meal of dry celery flakes and NO PROTEIN is virtuous. So, if some progs act like bloody predators or sugar-junkies who must have meat or sugar all the time, others are like herbivores who refuse to touch anything red-blooded and meaty. Both modes are a way of death and destruction. No sense of balance.

    Just like theory without practice is worthless, ideas separated from the body are useless. But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas -- 'race isn't real', 'diversity is strength', etc -- that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. At least extracted ideas have some relation to reality as source, even if simplified and abstracted. Today's PC ideas are fantasies cooked inside the lab out of thin air.


    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the “real meaning” of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.
     
    Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning. They prefer SUPERMAN movies, especially since the rise of youth culture that destroyed patience among the audience.

    We can argue about the meaning of movies, but what makes a particular movie great is not in the meaning. After all, so many movies have the same ideas, similar messages, similar situations, and etc. What really matters is ALL OF IT. Compare Alfonso Arau's MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS which is longer and fuller than Welles' butchered version. In the abstract, they have the same themes and conflicts, but one totally sucks while the other is great even in its butchered form. So, greatness goes beyond ideas or meaning, what Sontag talked about in AGAINST INTERPRETATION.
    If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families. We can find common themes of love, family problems, and etc. And yet, one's own family means so much while you wouldn't much care if another family died in an airplane crash. We read news of people dying every day all over the world, but they don't affect us. We know it's sad, but their passing doesn't feel like end of the world. Yet, losing one's own profoundly affect us. So, there is more to life than about meaning and themes. We can and should think about life and seek meaning, but the FEELING exists before any such thought. Ideas remind us of what all families have in common, but feeling reminds us that each family is unique and special.
    And too much thinking can lead to over-abstraction that cuts us from existence and feeling. Look at the fools in SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE by Bergman. I feel like saying, "Why don't you kiss her instead of talking her to death?" Why is the couple in WILD STRAWBERRIES having trouble? They think too much. The silly hubber has to THINK about why he should or shouldn't have kids. (Or consider the two idiots in BEFORE MIDNIGHT. Why don't they just shut up and just live?) In Bergman's films, there is the life force that just wants to create and live(and celebrate life at time), and the death force that sows doubt and doom in the hearts of men and women. Best is the balance of two. The craziest thing about our world is there is actually a CELEBRATION of the death of the West and white folks -- Hey!! Europeans aren't having kids, and that's so farout groovy!! -- , and CELEBRATION of the life of the OTHER -- again, Hey!! Europe is gonna be Africanized and that's gonna be great!!

    https://youtu.be/gJ2cQQfvcdk?t=91

    Corvinus is a venal and false guy…he cares about nothing- don’t waste your time with venal and apocalyptic people.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvinus is a venal and false guy…he cares about nothing- don’t waste your time with venal and apocalyptic people."

    Are you not determining how other people ought to live? Are you saying that I am other than able to live within my talents and strengths, which we as people all have in some way, shape, or form?
  197. @Steve Sailer
    But are they the influential ones? For example, Foucault, Said, and Gould have been pretty influential and they were pretty smart guys. (They all had their weaknesses, but you could see why people were impressed by them.)

    But who are the Big Brains of the latest whoop-tee-doo?

    Me, and the shitloads of people who are worked-up over your post. Bottom line: we will not determine by other people/authorities how we will live. We will live within our talents and strengnth.

  198. @Dieter Kief
    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enDE754DE754&sxsrf=ACYBGNRtBCHDed2bqLtPitgBSD_TWJZjkA:1578952103370&q=haus+zum+walfisch+freiburg&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdh_T5xoHnAhWM_KQKHRPbB4sQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1022&bih=515#imgrc=GpRNezioA35tOM: 

    We're All Particles of Changes / Orbiting Around the Sun (these are the Seventies again - Joni Mitchell - Hejira...).

    Oh - thanks! The post you commented on was the one I forgot after I had written it.

    - Desiderius lived amongst us Alemani for 20 years between 1514 and 1536  in Basel and Freiburg - in Freiburg in the above linked Haus zum Walfisch (The Whale House)  - owned by the communal bank Die Sparkasse, which is in dire straits now because of the hazardous negative interest rates of the European Central Bank... - it's still true what Friedrich Schelling once remarked: The damn things ALL hang together...

    Desiderius traveled from Freiburg into the Black Forest at times, because he was engaged in the Whichcraft-detecting-business. He rather studied those affairs though, than taking on some kind of action other than making hesitant remarks about what he himself saw and thought while experiencing these things from up close. - Reminds me of the Fred Feuerstein comic strip Friedrich Kambartel had at his office door in the eighties: A knight, while being on the lookout post is asked, whether the enemies are nearing - and his answer, to the perfect dismay of everybody else, is: Could be, but could also not be!  - And the moral of this story, according to Fred Feuerstein: You don't want to have philosophers on the lookout post!

    Aye, indeed not. Our minds tend to wander.

    Evidently your land currently suffers from a surfeit of philosophers and a paucity of kings. Though perhaps more accurately philosophisters, present company excluded.

    If negative interests rates can’t get them off of their asses nothing will.

  199. It is counter productive for smart woke people to say smart things. No dissent is allowed so one has to pay it safe. The goals of dumb woke beliefs are to:

    1. Test for purity

    2. Provoke a reaction among the non woke of WTF? This helps the woke identify thought criminals and provides the woke with an opportunity to smugly denounce non believers as stupid bigots.

    Thus we get such woke ideas as diversity is our greatest strength and ISIS is not Islamic

  200. @Anonymous

    This exhaustion runs deeper – it includes spiritual matters, psychological resources – the lack of oversight – – – Habermas coined the term of “the new lack of understanding (Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit)” in the 80ies.
     
    What is the cause of the alleged “exhaustion”?

    What does Haberman assert is the thing that people do not understand?

    1) Douglas Murray names two major reason in his quite interesting book The Strange Death of Europe (2017) : That conservatism isn’t conservative anymore. The other, maybe even bigger reason is: That there is a spiritual loss/ lack of spirituality/belief/ faith in Western cultures, which becomes more visible now, that Islam is taking hold of the public spheres in Western Europe.

    2) Jürgen Habermas saw something coming in the Eighties, which hardly anybody else even understood in its impressive society-changing power: The a.1) deterioration of the Old Left (concerned with “class-struggle” and – power) and a.2) the ascent of the New Left – the Woke and Green, the Postmaterialist Left, the Coalition of the Fringes Left in the footsteps not least of Herbert Marcuse’s writings, but also in those of the deconstructivist/postmodern/postmaterialist thinkers like Paul de Man and Jaques Derrida and Deleuze/Guattari, Lyotard, Foucault, – and Heidegger and Nietzsche…
    The big book of Habermas about these changes is The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity – unsurpassed to this day (not even by Habermas’ ca. 15 000+ pages of other writings! His latest tome This too a History of Philsophy, 2019, 1700 p. included).

  201. @Anonymous

    The fact of the matter is that people have and do think in those terms. They look at their history and wonder in amazement how they got from Point A to Point B. Their ideas of where they want to go stem from their past trials and tribulations.
     
    No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins. One must know the basic contours of that, but existence is not about thinking but about attachment, affection, feeling. When the West was secure and safe, most people didn't think much about anything. They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking.

    Also, it's not a matter of 'where they want to go'. That is what's destroying the West. There is no way to go. What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve. Now, technology changes, but people and culture are about preservation and 'staying' where you are, not GOING somewhere.


    What?
     
    Ideas are like chemicals abstracted from the source. It works in a chemistry lab to create certain chemicals, but life is not a chemistry lab. Why is whole wheat flour better than white flour? White flour leaves out all the fiber. Why are fruits better than sugar? Why are coca leaves less dangerous than purified cocaine? It's not just intellectuals who seek to purify aspects of humanity. Pop culture does this with sensations. It's like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest. It's immediately pleasing to the eye and ear but comes with no substance. Worse it addicts people to immediate sensation and makes them reject whatever doesn't give them the immediate jolt.
    Just like sugar for the body is a killer, pop culture is killer of the soul. This is why sugary desserts or snacks are OKAY on the side but must never be the main course. Same with pop culture. Some on the side as entertainment is okay, but as MAIN CULTURE it is deadly, leading to diabetes of the soul and cavities of the mind. But that is the state of globalist culture. It's one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture. They fixate on fake light than the sun. In the movie SUNSHINE, the sun is dying and mankind must regenerate it to survive. Likewise, the West must regenerate its own sun and stop gazing at the false light of pop culture. Or replant one's culture in the soil, that is if its roots haven't yet been cut off.

    Granted, if some intellectuals extract the potency and leave out the body, others leave out the potency in favor of self-denial as virtue. It's hedonism vs puritanism. Social Justice types are really moral-hedonists who love getting high on moral outrage. They are predatory in their constant bloodthirst. Or they are like sugar junkies who just gotta have another bite of moral smugness.
    But then, there are the puritanical types who feel ANY pleasure is sinful, leading to a kind of mental veganism. We see such types among certain film critics who always praise films without 'conventionality' of characters, plot, and pacing. They go for films where apparently nothing happens... as in JEANNE DIELMANN, surely the worst crap ever made. It's almost as if they regard anything that is naturally appealing to the audience is like red meat, something to be avoided. Richard Brody is a cultural vegan who praises even the dullest Godard films that are without characters, story, plot, drama, and other good stuff that make art entertaining. It's like pretending that a meal of dry celery flakes and NO PROTEIN is virtuous. So, if some progs act like bloody predators or sugar-junkies who must have meat or sugar all the time, others are like herbivores who refuse to touch anything red-blooded and meaty. Both modes are a way of death and destruction. No sense of balance.

    Just like theory without practice is worthless, ideas separated from the body are useless. But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas -- 'race isn't real', 'diversity is strength', etc -- that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. At least extracted ideas have some relation to reality as source, even if simplified and abstracted. Today's PC ideas are fantasies cooked inside the lab out of thin air.


    You mean if we break down that movie into its core ideas, one can reasonably make the argument that is about those two abstractions. Moreover, each person is able to extrapolate the “real meaning” of the film for themselves, whether it be noticing the beauty of the old country or the darkness of men driven by avarice.
     
    Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning. They prefer SUPERMAN movies, especially since the rise of youth culture that destroyed patience among the audience.

    We can argue about the meaning of movies, but what makes a particular movie great is not in the meaning. After all, so many movies have the same ideas, similar messages, similar situations, and etc. What really matters is ALL OF IT. Compare Alfonso Arau's MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS which is longer and fuller than Welles' butchered version. In the abstract, they have the same themes and conflicts, but one totally sucks while the other is great even in its butchered form. So, greatness goes beyond ideas or meaning, what Sontag talked about in AGAINST INTERPRETATION.
    If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families. We can find common themes of love, family problems, and etc. And yet, one's own family means so much while you wouldn't much care if another family died in an airplane crash. We read news of people dying every day all over the world, but they don't affect us. We know it's sad, but their passing doesn't feel like end of the world. Yet, losing one's own profoundly affect us. So, there is more to life than about meaning and themes. We can and should think about life and seek meaning, but the FEELING exists before any such thought. Ideas remind us of what all families have in common, but feeling reminds us that each family is unique and special.
    And too much thinking can lead to over-abstraction that cuts us from existence and feeling. Look at the fools in SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE by Bergman. I feel like saying, "Why don't you kiss her instead of talking her to death?" Why is the couple in WILD STRAWBERRIES having trouble? They think too much. The silly hubber has to THINK about why he should or shouldn't have kids. (Or consider the two idiots in BEFORE MIDNIGHT. Why don't they just shut up and just live?) In Bergman's films, there is the life force that just wants to create and live(and celebrate life at time), and the death force that sows doubt and doom in the hearts of men and women. Best is the balance of two. The craziest thing about our world is there is actually a CELEBRATION of the death of the West and white folks -- Hey!! Europeans aren't having kids, and that's so farout groovy!! -- , and CELEBRATION of the life of the OTHER -- again, Hey!! Europe is gonna be Africanized and that's gonna be great!!

    https://youtu.be/gJ2cQQfvcdk?t=91

    “No, they must live and feel, not think too much about existence. Imagine day in and day out THINKING about your existence and its origins.”

    You are now taking it to an extreme here. People back then and now do not act in the manner by which you are claiming. Assuredly, we all think from time to time about where we came from, but it does not dominate our lives.

    “When the West was secure and safe, most people didn’t think much about anything.”

    Assuming that the West is other than safe and secure, and assuming that people generally view themselves as “Westerners”.

    “They just understood and felt that life is about growing up, having children, and seeing grandchildren, and being remembered by the people you raised. Also, being part of a unique community and culture. This was sustained by a way of being, not by thinking.”

    “That is what’s destroying the West. There is no way to go.”

    Assuming the West is being destroyed, and assuming that people generally view themselves as Westerners.

    “What really matters is where you want to stay and and what you want to preserve.”

    Which requires analysis, i.e. thinking.

    “Pop culture does this with sensations. It’s like candy-making. It takes all the sugary and creamy stuff from culture for mass consumption and leaves out all the rest.”

    From your perspective. But our mass culture has also enabled people to be creative through their ideas which others find to be substantive in nature.

    “It’s one reason why Europe, America, and East Asia are dying. Pop Culture became their main culture.”

    Sources to back up your claim?

    “But so many academics in their bubble pontificate about ideas — ‘race isn’t real’, ‘diversity is strength’, etc — that have no bearing on reality. In that sense, their ideas are even worse than ideas extracted from reality. ”

    I would say your version of reality is different based upon your ideas on how the world ought to operate compared to other people.

    “Most people cannot extrapolate any meaning.”

    First, what evidence do you have that proves this assertion?

    Second, are you saying that you are able to “extrapolate any meaning” compared to others? If yes, what gives you this unique ability?

    “If we go for abstractions, every family has much in common with other families.”

    Which is observably true.

  202. @Lagertha
    Corvinus is a venal and false guy...he cares about nothing- don't waste your time with venal and apocalyptic people.

    “Corvinus is a venal and false guy…he cares about nothing- don’t waste your time with venal and apocalyptic people.”

    Are you not determining how other people ought to live? Are you saying that I am other than able to live within my talents and strengths, which we as people all have in some way, shape, or form?

  203. @Corvinus
    "Please read it yourself."

    I did read it. I didn't have the same reaction as yourself. Now, what exactly made anony’s statement “great” from your perspective? Please be specific.

    Sir, you are a sophist.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Sir, you are a sophist."

    LO, I'm not the one who thought an Anony's statement was "great" and outright refuses, when requested, to explain how and why.
    , @Desiderius
    Sophistry requires a degree of wisdom if ill-applied. He has yet to display any despite ample opportunity. One of the few who merits an ignore.
  204. @BB753
    Sir, you are a sophist.

    “Sir, you are a sophist.”

    LO, I’m not the one who thought an Anony’s statement was “great” and outright refuses, when requested, to explain how and why.

    • Troll: BB753
  205. @Corvinus
    "I take your point: indeed, the average American is probably more interested in the coming Superbowl than the Iowa caucuses."

    That wasn't my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual. Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.

    "Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them."

    They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right "approve" of.

    Corvinus replied to me:

    That wasn’t my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual.

    True enough, but the “normies” themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be “intellectuals,’ and indeed do not consider themselves to have an “ideology,” which nowadays is a smear term.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.

    Sure. What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about: that partly explains why Trump won.

    As I have posted repeatedly here, I myself think they are only partly right: I think free trade is generally beneficial and, while I agree that we cannot practically have unlimited immigration, I do not think immigration is a primary cause of current social problems. I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.

    Recognition of that fact is one strain of the Trumpian revolt, but so far there has been minimal action to reverse and restructure the degradation of our society.

    On all this, by the way, I agree with the leftist Dave Graeber: see his recent books Bullshit Jobs and The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. I think you’d like Graeber’s books: I urge you to get a copy.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.”

    [Corvinus]They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right “approve” of.

    Quite: I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!

    See, Corvinus, how unz.com brings people together? You, me, Dave Graeber, the ordinary Trump supporters, all working together to understand the social problematique in which we find ourselves.

    unz-com — the diverse center of transgressive discourse on the post-modern problematique.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus. Is there anything that Physicists can't do?

    I'm envious!
    , @Corvinus
    "but the “normies” themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be “intellectuals,’ and indeed do not consider themselves to have an “ideology,” which nowadays is a smear term."

    Actually, normies are intellectual and hold to their ideologies. Remember, we are white and have generally high IQ's. We understand how the game is being played.

    "What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about:

    Except that Trump has not delivered on the issues, as evident by a number of more recent anti-Trump posts by authors on this fine blog. Remember, Trump is a showman. He caters to his crowd to sow dissent. What exactly does he stand for?

    "I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt."

    They are not as unrestrained as you think. And, remember, Trump is part of that elite.

    "I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!"

    No, they are essentially similar in nature.
  206. @BB753
    Sir, you are a sophist.

    Sophistry requires a degree of wisdom if ill-applied. He has yet to display any despite ample opportunity. One of the few who merits an ignore.

    • LOL: BB753
  207. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus replied to me:

    That wasn’t my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual.
     
    True enough, but the "normies" themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be "intellectuals,' and indeed do not consider themselves to have an "ideology," which nowadays is a smear term.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.
     
    Sure. What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about: that partly explains why Trump won.

    As I have posted repeatedly here, I myself think they are only partly right: I think free trade is generally beneficial and, while I agree that we cannot practically have unlimited immigration, I do not think immigration is a primary cause of current social problems. I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.

    Recognition of that fact is one strain of the Trumpian revolt, but so far there has been minimal action to reverse and restructure the degradation of our society.

    On all this, by the way, I agree with the leftist Dave Graeber: see his recent books Bullshit Jobs and The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. I think you'd like Graeber's books: I urge you to get a copy.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.”

    [Corvinus]They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right “approve” of.
     
    Quite: I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!

    See, Corvinus, how unz.com brings people together? You, me, Dave Graeber, the ordinary Trump supporters, all working together to understand the social problematique in which we find ourselves.

    unz-com -- the diverse center of transgressive discourse on the post-modern problematique.

    Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus. Is there anything that Physicists can’t do?

    I’m envious!

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus."

    No squeezing necessary. I engage in good faith argumentation. The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.
  208. @Desiderius
    Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus. Is there anything that Physicists can't do?

    I'm envious!

    “Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus.”

    No squeezing necessary. I engage in good faith argumentation. The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Dissident

    [to Desiderius] The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.
     
    As opposed to you, Corvinus, who is clearly completely above such human weaknesses.
  209. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus replied to me:

    That wasn’t my point at all. The average American has their own understanding of who is influential to them in their lives. Leftists and the Alt Right ASSUME that normies ought to be brought up to speed with the individuals I had listed, lest normies be considered other than intellectual.
     
    True enough, but the "normies" themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be "intellectuals,' and indeed do not consider themselves to have an "ideology," which nowadays is a smear term.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Perhaps it is best for we to figure out for ourselves who we believe is important politically, economically, and socially. Of course, that is not to say that normies should not investigate those people I mentioned and determine for themselves as to what those ideas mean.
     
    Sure. What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about: that partly explains why Trump won.

    As I have posted repeatedly here, I myself think they are only partly right: I think free trade is generally beneficial and, while I agree that we cannot practically have unlimited immigration, I do not think immigration is a primary cause of current social problems. I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.

    Recognition of that fact is one strain of the Trumpian revolt, but so far there has been minimal action to reverse and restructure the degradation of our society.

    On all this, by the way, I agree with the leftist Dave Graeber: see his recent books Bullshit Jobs and The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. I think you'd like Graeber's books: I urge you to get a copy.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“Yes, the masses often never fully understand the ideas of the “academic scribblers,” but, surprisingly often, the masse prove willing to die for them.”

    [Corvinus]They do understand those ideas, but probably not in the way that the head honchos of the leftists or the Alt Right “approve” of.
     
    Quite: I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!

    See, Corvinus, how unz.com brings people together? You, me, Dave Graeber, the ordinary Trump supporters, all working together to understand the social problematique in which we find ourselves.

    unz-com -- the diverse center of transgressive discourse on the post-modern problematique.

    “but the “normies” themselves almost certainly do not consider themselves to be “intellectuals,’ and indeed do not consider themselves to have an “ideology,” which nowadays is a smear term.”

    Actually, normies are intellectual and hold to their ideologies. Remember, we are white and have generally high IQ’s. We understand how the game is being played.

    “What has happened in the last decade is that a substantial fraction of the American people have come to the conclusion that what matters to them are the issues that Trump (at a more intellectual level, the alt-Right) has been talking about:

    Except that Trump has not delivered on the issues, as evident by a number of more recent anti-Trump posts by authors on this fine blog. Remember, Trump is a showman. He caters to his crowd to sow dissent. What exactly does he stand for?

    “I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.”

    They are not as unrestrained as you think. And, remember, Trump is part of that elite.

    “I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!”

    No, they are essentially similar in nature.

  210. Corvinus wrote to me:

    Actually, normies are intellectual and hold to their ideologies. Remember, we are white and have generally high IQ’s. We understand how the game is being played.

    Well, I suspect that my estimate of the intelligence of white folks is rather lower than that of some commenters here!

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.”

    [Corvinus] They are not as unrestrained as you think. And, remember, Trump is part of that elite.

    Yeah, the problem is not that bureaucrats have unlimited power: most are more or less Walter Mittys, I suspect. But they have just enough power to keep things from working. I am sure you have run into this, just as everyone has. Again, I urge you to read Graeber’s books: as an anthropologist he has a rather keen (and amusing) perspective on how social structures can take perfectly normal human beings and cause them to become non-functional.

    And, yes, Trump is part of the elite, which points to the wider dilemma: how do you defeat the elite without help from members of the elite? They after all are the ones who understand the entire structure of power and how to push the levers of power.

    I’m very much afraid that the answer is that you wait till your capital has been bombed into rubble or your cities have been nuked. I hope there is a better way.

    Crovinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!”

    [Corvinus] No, they are essentially similar in nature.

    Now you have me intrigued. I’m an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.

    Can you go into more detail on your thoughts on this?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Well, I suspect that my estimate of the intelligence of white folks is rather lower than that of some commenters here!
     
    Half apparently think that they're being led around by the nose by their Jewish masters, so that seems doubtful. They're wrong about intelligence (underestimate), Corvy about engagement (overestimate). Most whites are ignoring the whole business.

    And, yes, Trump is part of the elite, which points to the wider dilemma: how do you defeat the elite without help from members of the elite?
     
    Trump is not in fact a part of the elite that matters, which is why they openly despise him. In any case the only way out short of destruction is dividing the elite against itself, with the vestigial power of the people to hammer the wedge, which has been his program.

    I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.
     
    Jesus never went to church. If you want to know what kind of church Paul thought he was creating, his letters are right there in the New Testament. As you note - there are wide disparities, but so were there then.
    , @Dissident

    I’m an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.
     
    Presumably you are referring to the scandals concerning alleged sexual abuse of minors that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church in recent decades. First, your characterization sounds like little more than a parroting of the conventional Main Stream Media Narrative that is, at a minimum, rather tendentious. Some countering viewpoints to consider include the following.

    - This August 26th comment by "HA" in a Steve Sailer thread, as well as other comments in the same thread-- both by the same author as well some by different authors.
    Selected excerpts:


    [...]indeed it is an outrage, but as far as making improvements, it is worth asking if anyone is doing things significantly better, and given the kind of abuse that goes on in, say, school districts on a regular basis, Catholics may currently be well below “average”. But there’s just not as much money or as many Pulitzers to be gotten by throwing dirt on other institutions so it’s hard to get an honest comparison and there’s very wide error bars around any figures.
     

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated [...], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred. Even the Boston Globe, was hailing psychiatric rehabilitation as late as 1992, just a few years before they turned to the more rewarding tack of condemning any Catholic diocese who took their advice.
     

    Consider whether the very term pedophile is even the correct one to use here. Is it not true that in the majority of cases of alleged abuse by members of the Catholic clergy, the alleged victims were post-pubescent adolescent males? Do you not find it at least quite plausible that in reporting on said scandal, the choice of the more generic, ambiguous term pedophilia over a more accurate, homo-specific one such as pederasty, has been quite deliberate (for what should be obvious reasons)?

    Homosexuality and the Church Crisis (Brian Clowes, 2010)


    There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.
     
    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, "what Christianity became".
  211. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Actually, normies are intellectual and hold to their ideologies. Remember, we are white and have generally high IQ’s. We understand how the game is being played.
     
    Well, I suspect that my estimate of the intelligence of white folks is rather lower than that of some commenters here!

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.”

    [Corvinus] They are not as unrestrained as you think. And, remember, Trump is part of that elite.
     
    Yeah, the problem is not that bureaucrats have unlimited power: most are more or less Walter Mittys, I suspect. But they have just enough power to keep things from working. I am sure you have run into this, just as everyone has. Again, I urge you to read Graeber's books: as an anthropologist he has a rather keen (and amusing) perspective on how social structures can take perfectly normal human beings and cause them to become non-functional.

    And, yes, Trump is part of the elite, which points to the wider dilemma: how do you defeat the elite without help from members of the elite? They after all are the ones who understand the entire structure of power and how to push the levers of power.

    I'm very much afraid that the answer is that you wait till your capital has been bombed into rubble or your cities have been nuked. I hope there is a better way.

    Crovinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!”

    [Corvinus] No, they are essentially similar in nature.
     
    Now you have me intrigued. I'm an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.

    Can you go into more detail on your thoughts on this?

    Well, I suspect that my estimate of the intelligence of white folks is rather lower than that of some commenters here!

    Half apparently think that they’re being led around by the nose by their Jewish masters, so that seems doubtful. They’re wrong about intelligence (underestimate), Corvy about engagement (overestimate). Most whites are ignoring the whole business.

    And, yes, Trump is part of the elite, which points to the wider dilemma: how do you defeat the elite without help from members of the elite?

    Trump is not in fact a part of the elite that matters, which is why they openly despise him. In any case the only way out short of destruction is dividing the elite against itself, with the vestigial power of the people to hammer the wedge, which has been his program.

    I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.

    Jesus never went to church. If you want to know what kind of church Paul thought he was creating, his letters are right there in the New Testament. As you note – there are wide disparities, but so were there then.

  212. @Corvinus
    "Squeezing good faith engagement from Corvinus."

    No squeezing necessary. I engage in good faith argumentation. The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.

    [to Desiderius] The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.

    As opposed to you, Corvinus, who is clearly completely above such human weaknesses.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As opposed to you, Corvinus, who is clearly completely above such human weaknesses."

    That would be you putting words in my mouth. We are all subject to confirmation bias. The key is to NOTICE it and make the requisite accommodations.
  213. @paranoid goy
    The same people who brought us the Stones and Beatles, namely the Tavistock Institute, a Rhodean-style genocidal thinkety-tank, now brings us thousands of toddlers on sex-change regime. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-gender diaspora. Their real achievement was the so-called Generation Gap, preventing grown-ups from teaching the children to laugh at the emperor's outfit. That is why kids think they are "woke" everytime they run into a facet of real life that can be circumvented by "the right thinking'. Any actual action would probably offend someone, so, just don't, okay? No-one was allowed to teach them otherwise, besides, education has been declared an "unsustainable activity" by all the most august of UN affilliates.

    Nice blog! Congrats!

  214. @Dissident

    [to Desiderius] The problem is that you do not prefer what I have to say since it is disrupts your own way of thinking. In other words, you are a slave to your confirmation bias.
     
    As opposed to you, Corvinus, who is clearly completely above such human weaknesses.

    “As opposed to you, Corvinus, who is clearly completely above such human weaknesses.”

    That would be you putting words in my mouth. We are all subject to confirmation bias. The key is to NOTICE it and make the requisite accommodations.

  215. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Actually, normies are intellectual and hold to their ideologies. Remember, we are white and have generally high IQ’s. We understand how the game is being played.
     
    Well, I suspect that my estimate of the intelligence of white folks is rather lower than that of some commenters here!

    Corvinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I primarily blame corruption of our institutions by the ruling elite: when you create a society run by unrestrained bureaucrats, in the areas of education, medicine, finance, the monetary system, foreign policy, etc., that society inevitably becomes corrupt.”

    [Corvinus] They are not as unrestrained as you think. And, remember, Trump is part of that elite.
     
    Yeah, the problem is not that bureaucrats have unlimited power: most are more or less Walter Mittys, I suspect. But they have just enough power to keep things from working. I am sure you have run into this, just as everyone has. Again, I urge you to read Graeber's books: as an anthropologist he has a rather keen (and amusing) perspective on how social structures can take perfectly normal human beings and cause them to become non-functional.

    And, yes, Trump is part of the elite, which points to the wider dilemma: how do you defeat the elite without help from members of the elite? They after all are the ones who understand the entire structure of power and how to push the levers of power.

    I'm very much afraid that the answer is that you wait till your capital has been bombed into rubble or your cities have been nuked. I hope there is a better way.

    Crovinus also wrote:

    [Dave]“I think we can agree, for example, that what Jesus taught and what Christianity became are not quite the same thing!”

    [Corvinus] No, they are essentially similar in nature.
     
    Now you have me intrigued. I'm an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.

    Can you go into more detail on your thoughts on this?

    I’m an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.

    Presumably you are referring to the scandals concerning alleged sexual abuse of minors that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church in recent decades. First, your characterization sounds like little more than a parroting of the conventional Main Stream Media Narrative that is, at a minimum, rather tendentious. Some countering viewpoints to consider include the following.

    This August 26th comment by “HA” in a Steve Sailer thread, as well as other comments in the same thread– both by the same author as well some by different authors.
    Selected excerpts:

    […]indeed it is an outrage, but as far as making improvements, it is worth asking if anyone is doing things significantly better, and given the kind of abuse that goes on in, say, school districts on a regular basis, Catholics may currently be well below “average”. But there’s just not as much money or as many Pulitzers to be gotten by throwing dirt on other institutions so it’s hard to get an honest comparison and there’s very wide error bars around any figures.

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated […], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred. Even the Boston Globe, was hailing psychiatric rehabilitation as late as 1992, just a few years before they turned to the more rewarding tack of condemning any Catholic diocese who took their advice.

    [MORE]

    Consider whether the very term pedophile is even the correct one to use here. Is it not true that in the majority of cases of alleged abuse by members of the Catholic clergy, the alleged victims were post-pubescent adolescent males? Do you not find it at least quite plausible that in reporting on said scandal, the choice of the more generic, ambiguous term pedophilia over a more accurate, homo-specific one such as pederasty, has been quite deliberate (for what should be obvious reasons)?

    Homosexuality and the Church Crisis (Brian Clowes, 2010)

    There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.

    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, “what Christianity became”.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Dissident wrote to me:

    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, “what Christianity became”.
     
    Well, it is by far the largest Christina denomination.

    I understand that some serious Christians think only they are the true Christians, and I do not want to invoke the "no true Scotsman fallacy" fallacy against them ("no true Scotsman" arguments are often valid, in fact).

    But, as a non-Christian myself, I feel it best to accept the self-attribution of the believers.

    Dissident quoted another poster:

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated […], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred.
     
    So, the Roman Church is no worse than secular liberals, our predatory ruling elite?

    Maybe you read the New Testament differently than I do, but this does not sound to me like an argument Jesus would make.

    There are a number of points on which I disagree with the Gospels' Jesus: e.g., I think that "turning the other cheek" often only encourages the bastards.

    But, I do sometimes wonder if self-professed Christians, especially the Christian clergy, have less agreement with Jesus than I do.
  216. @Dissident

    I’m an atheist, but still I do not think Jesus thought he was creating a wealthy, entrenched Church that tolerated and enabled numerous pedophile priests.
     
    Presumably you are referring to the scandals concerning alleged sexual abuse of minors that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church in recent decades. First, your characterization sounds like little more than a parroting of the conventional Main Stream Media Narrative that is, at a minimum, rather tendentious. Some countering viewpoints to consider include the following.

    - This August 26th comment by "HA" in a Steve Sailer thread, as well as other comments in the same thread-- both by the same author as well some by different authors.
    Selected excerpts:


    [...]indeed it is an outrage, but as far as making improvements, it is worth asking if anyone is doing things significantly better, and given the kind of abuse that goes on in, say, school districts on a regular basis, Catholics may currently be well below “average”. But there’s just not as much money or as many Pulitzers to be gotten by throwing dirt on other institutions so it’s hard to get an honest comparison and there’s very wide error bars around any figures.
     

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated [...], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred. Even the Boston Globe, was hailing psychiatric rehabilitation as late as 1992, just a few years before they turned to the more rewarding tack of condemning any Catholic diocese who took their advice.
     

    Consider whether the very term pedophile is even the correct one to use here. Is it not true that in the majority of cases of alleged abuse by members of the Catholic clergy, the alleged victims were post-pubescent adolescent males? Do you not find it at least quite plausible that in reporting on said scandal, the choice of the more generic, ambiguous term pedophilia over a more accurate, homo-specific one such as pederasty, has been quite deliberate (for what should be obvious reasons)?

    Homosexuality and the Church Crisis (Brian Clowes, 2010)


    There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.
     
    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, "what Christianity became".

    Dissident wrote to me:

    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, “what Christianity became”.

    Well, it is by far the largest Christina denomination.

    I understand that some serious Christians think only they are the true Christians, and I do not want to invoke the “no true Scotsman fallacy” fallacy against them (“no true Scotsman” arguments are often valid, in fact).

    But, as a non-Christian myself, I feel it best to accept the self-attribution of the believers.

    Dissident quoted another poster:

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated […], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred.

    So, the Roman Church is no worse than secular liberals, our predatory ruling elite?

    Maybe you read the New Testament differently than I do, but this does not sound to me like an argument Jesus would make.

    There are a number of points on which I disagree with the Gospels’ Jesus: e.g., I think that “turning the other cheek” often only encourages the bastards.

    But, I do sometimes wonder if self-professed Christians, especially the Christian clergy, have less agreement with Jesus than I do.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >So, the Roman Church is no worse than secular liberals, our predatory ruling elite?

    I think the sexual abuse problem in the Church is definitely real, but a wee bit overblown. (The Church has seen worse periods in its history than this, the pornocracy, the Borgias, etc.) Whereas sexual abuse in, say, public schools is often understated, and sexual abuses by our elites not covered at all until blown open, i.e, Epstein. The usual political considerations are at work when the media chooses which sectors of society's abuses to emphasize. It goes without saying that the Fourth Estate's own screwups and venality are at the absolute bottom of the list.

    Having said that, being slightly better than America's bipartisan elite circa 2020 is not exactly a bar that I think Jesus Christ would have set considering his own strained relationship with his own religious authorities. Of course, this raises the question of whether Jesus, a 1st Century Palestinian Jew, would have thought in terms of a dominant society-wide "religio" at all, anymore than Muhammad did nearly six centuries later. But that's another story.

    >There are a number of points on which I disagree with the Gospels’ Jesus: e.g., I think that “turning the other cheek” often only encourages the bastards.

    Unreconstructed Orthodox Christian conservatives exiled during the Soviet era had a rather different take on this.

    "In calling to love our enemies, Christ had in mind personal enemies of man, not God's enemies, and not blaspheming molesters, for them drowning with a millstone around their neck was recommended. Urging to forgive injuries, Christ was referring to personal insults to a person, not all possible crimes; no one has the right to forgive the offenses suffered by others or provide for the villains to offend the weak, corrupt children, desecrate churches and destroy the Fatherland. So therefore a Christian is called not only to forgive offenses, but to fight the enemies of God's work on earth. The evangelical commandment of "non-resistance to evil" teaches humility and generosity in personal matters, and not limpness of will, not cowardice, not treachery and not obedience to evildoers."

  217. @paranoid goy
    The clever ones have nothing but cattle as an audience?
    What a woke comment! I feel suitably chastised by your superior intellect, o Great Woke One. Me and my fellow ruminating beasts will just wander off out of your godly sight, shall we?

    No please don’t . Stay and contribute more .

  218. @PhysicistDave
    Dissident wrote to me:

    Finally, even if one were to accept your characterization of the Roman Catholic Church (along with all of the negative implications therein) one would still need to question the conflation of said Church with Christianity, per se implicit in your previous statement, “what Christianity became”.
     
    Well, it is by far the largest Christina denomination.

    I understand that some serious Christians think only they are the true Christians, and I do not want to invoke the "no true Scotsman fallacy" fallacy against them ("no true Scotsman" arguments are often valid, in fact).

    But, as a non-Christian myself, I feel it best to accept the self-attribution of the believers.

    Dissident quoted another poster:

    it was only since the mid-80’s that the psychiatric industry gave up pretending that sexual predators could be rehabilitated […], and that is when the bulk of these abuse cases (and that goes for the disastrous decisions to “rehabilitate” and shuffle them to another parishes) actually occurred.
     
    So, the Roman Church is no worse than secular liberals, our predatory ruling elite?

    Maybe you read the New Testament differently than I do, but this does not sound to me like an argument Jesus would make.

    There are a number of points on which I disagree with the Gospels' Jesus: e.g., I think that "turning the other cheek" often only encourages the bastards.

    But, I do sometimes wonder if self-professed Christians, especially the Christian clergy, have less agreement with Jesus than I do.

    >So, the Roman Church is no worse than secular liberals, our predatory ruling elite?

    I think the sexual abuse problem in the Church is definitely real, but a wee bit overblown. (The Church has seen worse periods in its history than this, the pornocracy, the Borgias, etc.) Whereas sexual abuse in, say, public schools is often understated, and sexual abuses by our elites not covered at all until blown open, i.e, Epstein. The usual political considerations are at work when the media chooses which sectors of society’s abuses to emphasize. It goes without saying that the Fourth Estate’s own screwups and venality are at the absolute bottom of the list.

    Having said that, being slightly better than America’s bipartisan elite circa 2020 is not exactly a bar that I think Jesus Christ would have set considering his own strained relationship with his own religious authorities. Of course, this raises the question of whether Jesus, a 1st Century Palestinian Jew, would have thought in terms of a dominant society-wide “religio” at all, anymore than Muhammad did nearly six centuries later. But that’s another story.

    >There are a number of points on which I disagree with the Gospels’ Jesus: e.g., I think that “turning the other cheek” often only encourages the bastards.

    Unreconstructed Orthodox Christian conservatives exiled during the Soviet era had a rather different take on this.

    “In calling to love our enemies, Christ had in mind personal enemies of man, not God’s enemies, and not blaspheming molesters, for them drowning with a millstone around their neck was recommended. Urging to forgive injuries, Christ was referring to personal insults to a person, not all possible crimes; no one has the right to forgive the offenses suffered by others or provide for the villains to offend the weak, corrupt children, desecrate churches and destroy the Fatherland. So therefore a Christian is called not only to forgive offenses, but to fight the enemies of God’s work on earth. The evangelical commandment of “non-resistance to evil” teaches humility and generosity in personal matters, and not limpness of will, not cowardice, not treachery and not obedience to evildoers.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS