Archive

Archive for December, 2017

On Long Term Social, Economic and Cultural Effects of Job Insecurity: 1

December 26, 2017 30 comments

A couple of weeks ago, an older acquaintance casually asked me about whether I intended to “settle down” someday soon. While that question was not unusual coming from somebody of her generation, it got me thinking about what it means to be able to “settle down” in the current era. I have a feeling that many, if not all, of you have been in a similar conversation with somebody a few decades older than yourself. As some of you might also know, well-paying and stable jobs with nice pensions used to be the norm in western countries since the end of WW2 till sometime in the mid-1980s. However the old ways continued for white-collar jobs, such as the one she had, right until the late 1990s-early 2000s.

In other words, career and income stability was the default state of affairs for most of the time since 1945. Now some of you might say that things used to be bad in even earlier eras such as the 1880s-1920s etc. My counterpoint is that there is a reason why life in those eras was so unstable and uncertain for everybody and is ultimately the reason why we had two world wars, multiple bloody revolutions and civil wars in the half century before WW2 ended. That is also why people like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco etc ascended to power and why right-wing militarism was ascendant in countries such as Japan during that era. Let us just say that there is as reason why so many developed countries implement sweeping socialist reforms in the aftermath of WW2.

The point I am trying to make is that previous experiments with laissez-faire capitalism have reproducibly lead to similar results across a number of countries and cultures. To put this in a contemporary perspective, there is a reason why Trump won the presidential election in 2016, the ‘leave’ side won in the 2015 Brexit referendum and so many European countries have seen the resurgence of right-wing nationalist parties. Anybody with more than half a brain can now see that Fukuyama’s “End of History” was just another example of the delusional ivy-league fantasy of power and control. All these warning signs have, however, not had much of an impact on those who are pushing for more neoliberalism. All these visible signs of public dislike for their policies, has if anything, increased their enthusiasm for furthering them.

But how does any of this play out at the level of the individual, family, society, nation-state etc? As many of you know, I have written many posts in the past about issues related to these changes such as spread of social atomization (link 1, link 2), collapse of normal relations between the sexes (link 3), loss of the normal life cycle of people and families (link 4), widespread mercenary attitudes among people (link 5, link 6), loss of public faith in institutions (link 7) etc. Most of what I have written on this topic thus far is, however, mostly about how people react to neoliberalism as state policy and some short and medium scale social changes. What about long-term changes? What would be the potential long-term social, economic and cultural effects of income and career insecurity?

Well.. as you must have realized by now, this is a large topic which cannot be adequately addressed in two or three posts, let alone a single one. Furthermore many potential long-term effects cannot be neatly characterized into distinct categories, since there is a lot of feedback and cross-talk among various aspects of these effects. So let me start by making the most obvious observation about the future of neoliberalism. Based on what I have seen to date, it is unlikely that neoliberalism (in any of its flavors) can be reformed into something gentler and less rapacious. The biggest beneficiaries and supporters of neoliberalism will keep on pushing it till they cease to exist- and you can read that statement in more than one way.

As a corollary, neoliberalism (in any form) is not sustainable beyond the next decade (at most)- but not because of its negative effects on the environment or some similar delusional reason. The real reason behind the unsustainability of that ideology has to do with its effect on society aka the host. Neoliberalism, you see, is a lot like a parasite or cancer in that it requires a host or system which operate on very different principles than itself. However every increase in its numbers and extent of spread compromises the normal functioning of the very system and environment which make its “success” possible.

Let us start by talking about one of the most obvious effects of neoliberalism, but one that is seldom connected to it- extreme sub-replacement fertility. While there has been a consistent worldwide reduction in rates of fertility over the last few decades, even in traditionally high fertility countries, the sub-replacement and still dropping rates of fertility in “developed” countries stand apart from the rest due to a number of factors. Firstly, the rate drop in those countries is due to factors beyond elimination of excessive childhood mortality. To be more precise, financial and career costs of having children combined with negative utility of having them are, by far, the main reasons for persistently sub-replacement fertility rates seen in “developed” countries.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the most significant drops are seen in those who are actively engaged in neoliberal “competition”- either for jobs and career or money. While people with this profile were once the minority, the increase in neoliberal-style “competition” for things as basic as jobs which pay a decent wage and are fairly stable has made this particular type of childlessness very common in younger sections of the population. There is of course, the irony, that those who are most invested in furthering their career through the neoliberal paradigm (and thus its most loyal foot soldiers) often have no children or one token child conceived when they are in their 40s.

While my views on having or not having children are neutral, it is worthwhile to note that part of reason neoliberalism will fail is that its most devout foot-soldiers (credentialed classes, professionals, aspiring types) will be neither truly rich nor capable of producing enough devout new worshipers of that ideology. To put it another way- even without other factors, neoliberalism as an ideology will decline as the number and influence of its most devout followers falls with every passing year. In contrast to this, blue-collar workers and not-so-connected white-collar types have no vested interest in supporting neoliberalism- irrespective of their fertility rates. To make a long story short, neoliberalism (like parasites and other ideologies) cannot survive the demise of their vectors.

In the next part of this series, I will try to focus on a related problem- namely, the fact that all those aspiring and credentialed/professional types who worship neoliberalism will themselves never have a secure livelihood or become truly rich.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Dec 22, 2017

December 22, 2017 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something intellectual tomorrow.

Plugged and Doggystyled Cuties: Dec 16, 2017 – Plugged cuties taking it, doggystyle.

Anal Doggystyled Cuties: Dec 19, 2017 – Doggystyled cuties taking it in the other hole.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Establishment Democrats and their Obsession with ‘Bipartisanship’

December 21, 2017 9 comments

As some of you might know- I am not a big fan of Christmas, and the holiday season in general, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I find this whole thing to be highly disingenuous given that it is clearly a consumerist holiday which pretends to be about something “higher”. Other holidays such as Halloween are far more honest about what they are, namely crass consumerism and drunk girls dressed like whores. Secondly, I detest any holiday which requires stores and restaurants to be closed for even a single day of the week. What is the whole point of a celebration if you cannot get a nice lunch or dinner at the restaurant of your choice?

Also, most public places seem to be filled with too many screaming kids during the holiday season. Then there is the issue of office buildings being subject to yet another round of poorly thought “upgrades” and “repairs” during this season. All in all, this is why I have not written posts on any profound topics within the last couple of days. And today will be no different, as this post is about a fairly mediocre topic that I had considered writing about a couple of times in the last few years. I decided to finally write about it because of the supposed opposition by establishment democrats to the blatant corporate giveaway aka the Republican Tax Reforms of 2017.

Some of you might say- “but, isn’t it good that establishment democrats were finally united in their opposition to this corporate giveaway by the republicans?” Well.. that is a superficial way of seeing things. A little digging under the surface reveals that more than a few democrats opposed corporate giveaways for reasons other than it being a bad idea. Rather, they seemed to be more upset that the bill passed today did not care about their input. In other words, more than a few establishment democrats would have been perfectly happy with supporting a similar corporate giveaway as long it was not that obvious and blatant. And this brings me to why establishment democrats are so obsessed with ‘bipartisanship’ for the passage of major legislation.

Conventional “wisdom”, aka bullshit spewed by paid shills in the mass media, suggests that establishment democrats care about ‘bipartisanship’ because they are “good and decent” human beings who care about maintaining the “civility” of discourse, due “process” and “dignity” of institutions. But is that really the case? Establishment democrats had no problem passing multiple rounds of corporate deregulation in 1980s and 1990s, welfare “reform” in the 1990s, opposing single payer healthcare in 1990s and 2000s, cheerleading for many “free trade” treaties and agreements, supporting the endless losing war on “terror” since 2001 and voting for any defense budget regardless of cost.

In other words, establishment democrats have been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of policies and institutions which immiserate the bulk of their voters. But what does this have to do with their obsession with ‘bipartisanship’? Well.. think about all the legislation and policies which the democrats did not pass because it supposedly lacked “bipartisan” support. Do you see a common theme running through such legislation and policies? In case you did not, establishment democrats most often talk about ‘bipartisanship’ as an excuse to not pass legislation or policies which would benefit the majority of their voters. A smaller, but still significant, percentage of ‘bipartisanship’ talk is also used to justify their support for pro-corporate legislation and policies.

But why is that so? Why do establishment democrats pretend to care so much about maintaining “bipartisanship”? What do they get from attempting to keeping up that charade? Who are they trying to deceive? The answers to this question start become obvious once you start looking the how the two main political parties in USA are funded. To make a long story short, there is almost complete overlap between the list of major financial contributors to both the republican and democratic party. While there a few standout exceptions, it is fair to say that both parties and their elected representatives are beholden to corporate and non-corporate financial backers who also provide cushy post-political jobs to legislators who further their interests.

While this explains why democrats are so willing to work with republicans on legislation and policies that screw over almost everybody else who voted for them, how does it explain them invoking ‘bipartisanship’ far more often than republicans? To understand that, we have to consider another factor- namely, the profile of those who vote for each party. Since the passage of civil-right regulations by democrats in the mid-1960s, they have not been able to win the majority of white voters in almost every national election and most regional ones. Now, we can spend thousands of words trying to explain the stupidity of many classes of white voters voting for republicans- but that is not the focus of this post. Instead, let us focus on who votes for democrats, especially establishment democrats.

To make a long story short, establishment democrats get most of their votes from the following constituencies: non-whites, poorer whites especially women, younger whites, whites with professional degrees and university education- especially women and truly well-off whites. As you might have noticed, the bulk of their voting constituencies stand to benefit from progressive legislation such as raising the minimum wage, single payer government healthcare, inexpensive tax-funded higher education, rules against corporate monopolies etc. Establishment democrats therefore have to at least put up a facade of being devoted to the causes of the so-called 99%. But how can they put up that facade and then weasel away from those promises- one election after the other?

This is where the concept of “bipartisanship” becomes so central for establishment democrats. They can use that concept, again and again, to explain to their voter-base why they are incapable of passing legislation which would improve their lives. Increase in minimum wage.. sorry, we could not reach a bipartisan agreement on it, Medicare for all.. sorry, there was not bipartisan support for that idea, taxpayer funded university education.. sorry, there was too much opposition from republicans and so on. On the other hand, they can still participate in republican initiated gutting of the social safety net, repealing regulations and rules that hinder corporate excess and pretty much anything demanded by their corporate backers- because they are “common sense reforms” and the results of “bipartisanship”.

Readers might have noticed that this particular scam by the democratic establishment is not working as well as it used to, especially after 2008. A significant percentage of their voter-base now sees through this bullshit and has stopped voting in elections or switched their vote in protest. That is why the democratic party lost so many state level seats, governorships, house, senate and presidency since their last high-point in 2008. That is why a Jewish guy in his mid-70s came so close to beating the anointed democratic candidate of the establishment in 2016 democratic primaries. A similar process among the republican voterbase is key to understanding why Trump won the republican primaries and then the presidency in the 2016 elections.

So let us call ‘bipartisanship’ by its real name- collusion against the interests of the majority of their respective voterbases.

What do you think? Comments?

How to Recognize ‘Massey Sahibs’ in USA: Dec 17, 2017

December 17, 2017 6 comments

About three years ago, I wrote a couple of posts (link 1, link 2) about a category of people of Indian descent who I refer to as “Massey Sahibs”. In case you have not come across particular term before- it is the name of the central character in an Indian film of the same name, who while displaying considerable intelligence and competentence, also shows a systemic inferiority complex vis-a-vis white people and is comically subservient to them. The white people in that movie, British colonial officers to be exact , use his eagerness to please them to perform illegal activities on their behalf and make him the fall guy once the scheme is uncovered. However Massey, till the very end, exhibits a child-like belief in ability of his white supervisors (and white people in general) to save him from judicial prosecution.

In other words, a ‘Massey Sahib’ is a well-educated, upwardly mobile person of Indian descent who will go to ridiculous and often comical extents to attempt ingratiating themselves to colleagues and supervisors who are white. They will go to ridiculous attempts to play down their ancestry, even when their looks won’t allow them. These include constant attempts to deflect any conversations which might even obliquely reaffirm their non-white ancestry. One of the more comic examples of this behavioral quirk can be seen in Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal (middle mug in the graphic) who tries to deflect every conversation about his early life to one about his conversion to some form of evangelical Christianity. He even went so far as to have his official governor’s portrait done to make him look almost ‘white’.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that somebody like him should fixate on his ethnicity at every available opportunity- but attempts to deflect attention from it in an ineffectual manner serve the opposite purpose. A more polished attempt to deflect attention from his ancestry can be seen in the case of Satya Nadella (right mug in the graphic). His brand of distractions, in contrast to Piyush Jindal’s, are based in attempts to validate his possession of secular markers of ‘whiteness’. If you have seen any interviews with him, he never misses an opportunity to talk about his thoughts on the works of semi-famous white writers and philosophers. He also goes to great lengths to put forth the tone, mannerisms and body language of an extra-liberal white CEO with just enough exoticness to make him a valuable marker of multiculturalism.

And this brings us to the most ridiculous one of the three shown in the graphic… aka Ajit Pai (left mug in graphic). His shtick, in contrast to the other two examples, is just simple and plain corporate prostitution. He does not even bother to address the issue of ethnicity and simply advertises himself as a corporate crack-whore who will suck any cock for the right amount of compensation (immediate or delayed). Some of you might say that his behavior sounds like another white guy in his position- and that is partially correct. So let us talk about whether his ethnicity had anything to do with his career trajectory. Do you think that his being non-white had nothing to do with rise in public positions, both at the telecom oligopolies he worked and his appointment and rise at the FCC? Face it, a republican non-white guy who is willing to be enthusiastic public face of corporate fuckery is an asset.

In that respect, he is just a miniature and shoddy version of Obama- another obviously non-white guy who was willing to take the blame for perpetuating corporate fuckery in exchange for money after retiring from that post. The neoliberal gimmick of appointing a few obviously non-white people into positions of some power is that criticism of them will inevitably result in disingenuous counter-accusations of racism. So what makes the three people I have talked about in this post “Massey Sahibs” as opposed to generic “Corporate Climbers” or “Careerists”? What are the differences between those categories? Well.. it comes down to motivations and behavior in non-work related situations. The generic corporate climber or careerist is into brown-nosing and prostituting himself/herself for future money and power. They are not doing it to be “let into” a group outside of work. Nor are they positioning themselves to be the fall guy if things go bad.

Contrast that to the behavior patterns of people like Ajit Pai, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal and Satya Nadella. These people are willing to debase themselves far more and take on significantly more personal loss than the generic careerist. But why would they do that? Well.. as I previously mentioned, their non-work related behavior clearly shows that they have a significant inferiority complex and desire to be accepted as at least second-class whites. To this end, they are willing to take on far more personal degradation and risk for the benefit of already well-off whites who they believe will recognize their sacrifice and reward them later. Their white supervisors are quite OK with dropping a few breadcrumbs and tantalizing hopes of acceptance into their group as long as they keep doing the dirty work for them. Of course, these “Massey Sahibs” are left to their own devices after they have no further utility or become a liability- and this is what makes people in that category so more pathetic than generic careerists, who have a far stronger sense of self-preservation.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Dec 12, 2017

December 12, 2017 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something intellectual tomorrow.

Doggystyled Amateur Cuties: Dec 12, 2017 – Amateur cuties getting doggystyled.

Drawings of Spanked Cuties: Dec 12, 2017 – Drawings of cuties getting spankings.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

On the Obsession of Corporate Media with “Trump-Russia” Fairy Tales

December 11, 2017 19 comments

Almost eleven months ago, I wrote a post about how the then new obsession of establishment democrats and mainstream corporate media with alleged “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election” was a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Sharp-eyed readers will notice that it was the first in what was supposed to be a short series on how this manufactured “scandal” was another symptom of the general disconnect between establishment types and everybody else. At that time, I had hoped that this particular establishment brainfart would be temporary and most people in it would eventually regain their tenuous connection with reality.

Of course, even then I knew that this manufactured “scandal” was going to last for a long time- largely because establishment democrats and their neoliberal media allies and donors had no interest in a genuinely populist counter-platform to Trump and the republicans. To make a long story short, I could not find enough motivation to write the next part of that series because Russia-hysteria by establishment democrats kept reaching increasingly ridiculous levels with each passing day. A couple of months after that, I tried writing another series on the reasons behind the promotion of anti-Russian hysteria by the establishment. Once again, I could not get myself to write a second part because.. the hysteria kept on getting worse, if that is even possible.

I did, however, write a standalone article later that month about why establishment democrats are desperate to believe in the myth of Russian interference in 2016 elections. To make a long story short, democrats are still unable to accept that their 30-year old neoliberalism-lite formula has no realistic future. They can’t believe that paid endorsements by various celebrities and “intellectuals”, lots of advertisements on old mass media platforms, carefully written but utterly dishonest speeches and party platforms and tons of ivy-league consultants could not defeat a mediocre reality-TV star.

So where do establishment democrats and their mainstream corporate media operatives go from here? Or are we stuck in an endless stream of ineffectual “leaks” and “scoops” about ongoing investigations (real or imagined) into the ‘Trump-Putin’ or ‘Trump-Russia’ connection until Hell freezes over for them?

While I try to be optimistic, past experience has shown that my pessimistic.. I mean realistic.. assumptions are usually correct. IMHO, we have gone past the point where establishment types could make a graceful exit from this carnival freak-show. Expressing steadfast belief in the validity of a ‘Trump-Putin’ or ‘Trump-Russia’ scandal is now a required part of the democratic party belief system, not unlike how devout Christians are expected to believe in the resurrection of Christ or devout Muslims are supposed to believe that their Prophet ascended to heaven on a winged horse.

Now, you might ask, how can I be so certain about this particular outcome? Let us start by talking about Louise Mensch. In case you wondering what I referring to, here is a little primer on her. To make another long and convoluted story short, this woman is a life-long attention whore with a talent for inserting herself into controversies. Let latest vehicle to fame (or infamy) has been a constant stream of increasingly laughable confabulations about Trump being in imminent danger of being arrested and impeachment through some fanciful ‘double secret’ investigation.

But why talk about a two-bit attention-whore with no real understanding or insight into whatever she is tweeting about? Well.. as it turns out, there is a huge market for her laughably ridiculous tweets, and not just from partisan democratic party supporters or brain-damaged rubes. This serial confabulator has been enthusiastically retweeted by supposedly respectable establishment types such as Laurence Tribe, a bunch of famous journalists, many senior democratic party operatives and many more supposedly “serious” and “intelligent” people. Her scam even got her published in the NYT and she appeared on multiple allegedly respectable talk shows.

And this brings us the inevitable question: Why were so many supposedly “intelligent” people so willing and eager to believe such utter bullshit? Why were they so enthusiastic about trying to get rid of Donald Trump through such highly questionable legal maneuvers than by simply pointing out his numerous and massive shortcomings while offering a plausible and comprehensive counter-platform? I think it comes down the simple fact that neoliberal establishment types cannot even bear the thought of offering a true populist alternative to Trump.

They still believe that Trump’s victory is a temporary aberration and they can go back to their old neoliberal ways once he steps down or is impeached. They still believe that the world hasn’t changed since 2006-2007 and that the neoliberal consensus can go on till the end of time. While this might seem highly delusional to people with some connection to reality, establishment types (democrat and republican) and their media stooges live in a world where they nobody they interact with contradicts their belief system. They literally cannot imagine a world different from the one responsible for their ill-gotten wealth and position in society.

To give you an idea about the depth of wishful thinking prevalent in democratic establishment types, let us talk about the Steele dossier. I am sure that many of you might about that secret report containing information about an older incident in a Russian hotel involving Trump, local escorts and ‘golden showers’. Have you ever wondered by the democratic establishment and their media operatives were so willing to uncritically believe the veracity of an incident so odd and contrary to Trump’s persona?

I mean.. most people would totally believe a story that Trump had a thing for escorts who looked like his oldest daughter, Ivanka. They would even believe a story about him demanding beauty pageant participants give him oral sex in exchange for promotion deals. And yet the dimwitted confabulator who wrote that dossier, paid in part by the democratic party establishment, came up with a story that was so obviously and laughably improbable. But the bigger issue here is that the democratic establishment and their media operatives were very enthusiastic and willing to propagate something that was poorly researched and hard to believe.

So.. why could establishment types and their media flunkies not come up with better material for smear jobs aimed at Trump? Why have all their attempts, to date, been so laughably ineffective and amateurish. Aren’t these people supposed to the cream of american intelligentsia, educated at ivy-league universities and apparently “succeeding” a series of important-sounding and highly paid careers. Or maybe, they are not. Maybe, they are just mediocre parasites who were born to the rich parents or got a few random lucky breaks. Maybe, they are helpless and incompetent in an environment which is different from the one that facilitated their parasitism.

And that is why the title of this post suggests that corporate media flunkies of the democratic party are obsessed with fairy tales about Trump. As all of you know, people above a certain age and commensurate mental faculties are incapable of believing in such stories even if they tell them to entertain younger children. The democratic party establishment and their media flunkies appear to be so out of touch with reality and how other people view them that they are relentlessly peddling ludicrous stories to discredit Trump while totally ignoring his many broken electoral promises and highly unpopular decisions he made since he assuming office.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Initial Thoughts on Jordan Peterson: Dec 6, 2017

December 6, 2017 12 comments

About three weeks ago, the blogger more commonly known as Rollo Tomassi asked me about my thoughts on Jordan Peterson. In case some of you don’t know much about this person, just google his name or search Twitter for posts by him or about him. To make a long story short, Jordan Peterson is currently a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Toronto who has reached a level of fame (or notoriety) on some parts of the internet because of his allegedly non-establishmentarian views on topical issues such as postmodernism, political correctness, white privilege and cultural appropriation.

So what do I think about this guy and his views and positions? Are they genuine or based in a desire for fame and money? Well.. what I am going to say about all that in the rest of this post (and maybe a future one) is not going to be liked by either his supporters or detractors. My analysis of other people tends to be a bit more complex than saying that they are irredeemably bad or unremittingly good. I like to understand the environment which they grew up in and how they achieved, or fell into,their current position.

So let us start with how Jordan Peterson reached where he is today.

1] According to Wikipedia, he grew up in a small town (Fairview) somewhere in the middle of the province of Alberta in Canada. Basically that is the Canadian equivalent of growing up in some one horse town in west Texas or the deep south. In other words, he grew up in an environment that was socially conservative, quite racist and not progressive- to put it mildly. It is therefore not surprising that many of his current publicly held viewpoints are somewhat CONservative. The fact that he now often glosses over his early background tells you something about how he sees unpolished CONservatism.

2] It seems he got into the big university in that province, moved on to a more prestigious one in the east, then went on to Harvard and came back to Canada after a few years. This is a very common pattern for career climber types in Canadian universities and provides an interesting insight into what he wants in life. In case you are wondering, many Canadian universities prefer to recruit people who have spent some time at ivy-league universities because it looks good for the university- regardless of whether the person in question was the best candidate for that position.

3] He attempted to get into the media spotlight since the early 2000s. While his early attempts were not very successful, they did get him onto what is basically the Canadian version of a PBS type channel. It is noteworthy that these attempts at media exposure steered clear of the type of subjects and issues for which he is now famous. For many years after his initial forays into media exposure he was basically a TED-talker type who offered his “insights” into hard to define topics- which is another way of saying that his act involved appearing to provide erudite answers for deliberately vague topics.

4] His break into semi-fame came when he started to upload his lectures to YouTube in 2013. That is also when I first came across his name on various blogs- especially in their comment sections. As many of you also know, the ‘alt-right’ movement also took off at around that time. However the action which contributed most to his public persona involves his public position on the C-16 bill (in 2016), which he correctly pointed out could be used to severely restrict freedom of speech. It also helped that the bill in question was being pushed through parliament in a pretty heavy-handed manner.

And this brings us to the question as to how this small-town raised prof with CONservative leanings became an internet celebrity. Alternatively, why didn’t other far more well-known academics step into the public discussion about those topics. Surely, there is no shortage of academics in Canadian and American universities who will go on record for their support of a variety of other social and political causes- from talking about ‘climate change’, rights of transgender people etc. Why are so many academics unwilling to support ideas such as free speech, even at the level they used to a couple of decades ago? What has changed?

5] In my opinion, the most important change in academia and pretty much every other large institution in western societies over the last 20-30 years has been their capitulation to the ideology of neoliberalism. But what does an ideology such as neoliberalism have to do with the silence of entire institutions on issues such as free speech? Well.. a lot, but it basically comes down to two types of effects.

6] Firstly, neoliberal institutions tend to hire and promote only certain types of people.You have to be consistently pleasant-acting, spineless, middle-manager type to reach even the middle-levels of these institutions. There is zero tolerance for dissent, independent thinking or opinion. In neoliberal institutions, everything is about money and appearances. Also, expressing opinions that are not approved by higher-ups or not ‘fashionable’ is severely discouraged. It is therefore not surprising that almost no other academic of any public stature in Canada has expressed views that are even marginally similar to Peterson.

7] Secondly, embracing neoliberal ideology results in concentration of power- specifically of the institutional type. What was once a dynamic and flourishing eco-system of small, medium and large institutions decays into a mono-culture full of monopolies and oligopolies. The people who reach the highest level of power in these institutions are cut from the same proverbial cloth and run those institutions solely to maximize their personal profit and power. Consequently, they try to minimize any appearance of dissent and try to force their beliefs (in reality, what they want others to believe) upon their employees.

8] The net result of this institutional governance shift has been that any idea, cause or belief which runs contrary to the neoliberal goal of making maximal amounts of money for a select few is ignored, suppressed or ridiculed. In other words, ideas such as freedom of speech or even suggestions of ideological non-conformity are now perceived as too risky and potentially career-ending by many people in the system. That is also why these issues were raised by somebody like Peterson, rather than by somebody who was far more “famous” than him.

I should also point out that the neoliberal elite like to be seen as enlightened, just and deserving of their ill-gotten gains. That is why they are quite happy to support various “social justice” movements as long as those movements do not question the socio-economic status quo. To summarize this post, Jordan Peterson’s ascent to fame has more to do with numerous failures and dysfunctions within the current socio-economic-cultural setup (aka ‘the zeitgeist’) than innate ability or belief in the causes he is promoting. He just saw an under-served market and rode that opportunity to fame.

What do you think? Comments?