One of my more important insights into systemic large-scale human stupidity is about what people are willing to believe in or, to be more precise, their persistence in belief about stuff that clearly do not exist. The vast majority of suffering throughout history (and the present) can almost always be traced back to belief in their own bullshit- whether it is about gods, prophets, religions, morals, social mores, authority, ideologies etc. One of the contemporary examples of this stupidity concerns people continuing to believe in the existence of nation-states that clearly do not exist. As I will show you, this particular thread of self-delusion is unusually dangerous not only to those affected by belief in it, but also those who act on that belief.
But before we go further, let us try to quickly define what a modern nation-state is and is not. A modern nation-state, such as those that came into being after the industrial revolution (especially after the late 1800s) are entities unlike any that preceded them. Their uniqueness is not a consequence of people being stupider in earlier eras, but rather a consequence of socio-economic and technological changes subsequent to industrialization. Modern nation-states are defined by the protean reach of the state machinery (or bureaucracy) into the day-to-day lives of their ordinary citizens or subjects. To put it another way, “sovereign” governments that cannot support an almost all-pervasive and moderately functional bureaucracy cannot function as modern nation-states.
But why is this definition important? Well.. it comes down to what socio-economic systems they can support and the consequences thereof. For example, the existence of capitalism in any form requires that most people are engaged in wage work. This is not possible unless an invasive and functional bureaucracy can systemically control, pauperize and immiserate the majority of the population. The same is true for state communism and is the reason why nation states such as the USSR were not fundamentally different from the USA. But this feature of the modern nation-state comes at a peculiar cost. People who rule and govern modern nation-states start believing in their own bullshit, especially the part about it being the “only way”. They so desperately want to see everyone else in the world doing things the “same way” that they often make, and act on, decisions that have no link to reality. As you will see in the rest of this post, such willful ignorance and stupidity comes at a huge human cost and is ultimately as dangerous to the believers as those initially screwed over by their stupidity.
Consider the following examples of modern nation states that do not really exist even though the rest of the world, especially the west, act as if they do.
Iraq: What can I say.. It began as a country carved out of post-WW1 ottoman concessions to the then victorious allies and suffered multiple rounds of uprisings and low-intensity civil wars even before WW2 started. After WW2, the broken european nations had to relinquish indirect control to local leaders sparking, you guessed it, another round of uprisings and coups which led to Saddam Hussein who was able to keep the lid on things for a couple of decades. After that we had the USA-initiated Gulf War 1 , then a Gulf War 2 which was followed by a decade-long and still running civil war. This part of the world has not experienced anything remotely approaching a semi-functional nation-state since 1991 and YET the most of the world pretends that this nation-state actually exists. They do so even when the “official” elected government has no authority even 30 km north of their capital city, Baghdad. The northern part of this supposedly modern nation-state has been an almost autonomous Kurdish proto-state for over a decade. Then there is the now hard-to-ignore fact that most of the middle of that country is run by an semi-centralized entity that calls itself ISIL or Da‘ish. Given that there is little possibility of this situation changing substantially in the near future, shouldn’t we just stop believing that Iraq exists. I mean.. what harm can come from acknowledging what has been obvious for the last three decades or more. Perhaps it will be easier to deal with three entities that have some control over the territory they claim than one entity that has no authority over most of the country?
Afghanistan: Seriously.. how can this place be even considered to be a nation-state? For starters- it was carved out by the British and other western powers in the 19th century out of parts of central Asia that were too hard to colonize. It also does not help that most of this place has, since time immemorial, been occupied by numerous related but largely independent tribes engaged in continuous low-intensity conflicts with each other. Sure.. there have had kings and even emperors- but those individuals had little real authority beyond their capital city. To put it another way, most of the people in that region have never experienced anything close to living under a nation-state. I would hasten to add that the boundaries of this nation-state are hard to define because they are arbitrary and often passes through inhospitable terrain. Then there is the issue of Pakistan, its eastern neighbor, who has a lot of socio-economic and military influence in the eastern part of this country. To make matters even more complicated, most of this influence is based on transient and often fragile working arrangements with local tribal leaders. So how is a “country” whose government’s writ does not run beyond its own capital city and whose borders are poorly defined and uncontrolled considered a nation-state? Iraq had two decades of despotic centralized rule under Saddam Hussein. I don’t believe the nation-state known as Afghanistan had even that..
Yemen: Yet another example of a place that has seen human occupation and civilizations for thousands of years, but which is not a nation-state. Sure.. it, like Iraq and Afghanistan, has nominally been the part of many old empires. But its peculiar geographical characteristics have made it hard to define and has also resulted in a history filled with many small and localized kingdoms and fiefdoms. It does not help that this place has always been politically highly decentralized and geographically rather vague. A look at satellite views of its official borders with neighboring countries is helpful for understanding the later part of the previous sentence. Then there is the whole issue of who has been ruling, or not ruling, that country since WW2. While it started as a nominal arab-style tribal monarchy in the 1920s after a complicated civil war, things went to hell by the 1960s resulting in another much larger civil war and re-partitioning of the country, followed by a reunification which led to a rekindling of the low-intensity civil war which led to another country where the governments writ does not run beyond the capital city. Yet this place is considered by the west to be a nation-state.
In the next part of this short series, I will try to write about similar “nation-states” such as Ukraine and Libya.
What do you think? Comments?
Have a look at this YouTube clip which pretty much summarizes what I, and many other, believe will be the future of work.. or the lack thereof.
What do you think? Comments?
One of the major beliefs necessary for the “normal” functioning of modern nation states (capitalist or otherwise) is that there is a direct linkage between a person’s pay and the important of their occupation. That is how, for example, people justify paying a surgeon more than a person who cleans sewers- though the later saves more lives than the former. Now some of you might say that it easier to clean and maintain sewers than perform neurosurgery, and that is partially true.
But not all hard to learn skills are paid well. For example, somebody who can juggle 6 knives or fart a musical tune (something that very few can do) will almost never make anywhere near the amount of money made by your average mid-level executive drone. Faced by the necessity to explain this problem, most people will quickly turn to a secondary explanation.
Most people want to believe that pay is correlated to the difficulty of an occupation AND its social necessity.
While this explanation might satisfy most people, it is also demonstrably false. Consider any number of recent cases where the CEOs or board members of large corporations receiving extremely generous severance packages while the majority of employees got pretty close to nothing. Or what about highly paid celebrities and entertainers? Are they really that much better than their peers who did not were less lucky? I could give you many more examples, but that will detract from the next point.
At the start of this post, I used the term “modern nation states”. Did you wonder why I used that term instead of others like “societies” or “countries”? Well.. that term is important because of the role played by that type of entity in this justification of income inequality. In previous eras income inequality was justified through the commission, or threat of, theft or murder.
The feudal knights, lords, vassals and kings of previous eras were not rich because they were “good”, “moral” or competent. They were rich because they could gather an entourage of followers large enough to terrorize and steal from people who could not do so. Sure.. some pretended that were of “noble birth” and “superior morals”- but collection of rents, taxes and tributes was always reliant on the threat of lethal force rather than their “noble birth” or “superior morals”.
The birth and evolution of the modern nation-state has certainly changed some of that. With a few exceptions, countries are no longer run by people who claim a special divine right to rule. Moreover, modern states do at least try to provide some basic level of legally guaranteed benefits and services to their general population. Yet in other respects, these entities are not that different from their pre-modern counterparts. Revenue collection is still done by the threat of force, torture or death and sovereignty is still defined by a monopoly on violence.
Then there is the issue of dressing older patterns of functioning in new explanations. As I mentioned previously, pre-modern societies were quite open about the fact that being rich (or well paid) was about being more lucky, violent or crooked than your peers. However this plain but depressing explanation is not compatible with societies of the complexity we live in today. Just think about how long modern societies would last if most people understood that the amount of money they received was proportional to their luck, ability to be violent or crookedness.
The necessity to cover up and justify income inequality has given rise to a new mythology- the lie of “meritocracy”. According to this new lie, the amount of money and power a person possess has a strong connection with their “IQ”, “competence” and “ability”. In other words, it claims that those with money are smart, competent and deserving and those without it are not. Of course there are obvious exceptions to this “rational” model of the world, but they are explained away as exceptions that prove the rule.
While this rational-sounding explanation might satisfy enough commoners, especially during times of economic growth, it carries within itself the seeds of its own demise. To understand what I am going to say next, you have to understand that not all lies are equally dangerous to the liar. For example- lies told to others are, usually, not especially harmful to the liar. In contrast to that, lies that people tell themselves can be extremely dangerous because people frequently believe their own lies.
In the next part of this series, I will use a few examples of illustrate why the “meritocracy” lie prevalent in modern nation states is significantly more dangerous than the pre-modern lies it replaced.
What do you think? Comments?
My less-than-optimistic views about humans, as well as my thought experiments, are well-known to regular readers of this blog. So, in that vein, here is another post (or perhaps series). Important: The following is a thought experiment, hence the simplification of numbers and ratios.
Imagine that you live in a social system containing a million more people. The level of technology, institutions etc of this ‘million+1′ system are pretty much identical to those found in contemporary materially affluent and developed nation states. So far, so good..
Now, let me set up the question. Imagine that the entirety of your life experiences strongly suggest that you (the individual) are routinely and continually being abused, discriminated against, marginalized and relatively impoverished. After enduring this state of affairs for 2-3 decades, your range of options to responding to this generally hostile society suddenly change due to the accidental acquisition of a ‘deus ex machina’ device.
This alien device has a switch and a dial with the following settings:
(1) Cause death of the device user.
(2) Cause death of the most abusive, discriminating and powerful 10% of the population.
(3) Cause death of the another 80% of the population (the not-so abusive and discriminating).
(4) Cause death of 100% of the population (even the non-abusive, non-discriminating).
Here is my question- Which setting would you use, if you choose to use such a ‘deus ex machina’ device?
Though the first option might seem quaint, it is actually the only way to actually remove yourself from the outcome of choosing the other three options. A few may choose it, most wont. So let us talk about the second option. Causing the death of the worst 10% might seem like the most just option- at least by conventional ideas of morality. But is it a solution? What about the role of the 80% who just followed orders? Surely, people who follow orders without thinking through their implications or consequences are as responsible for a dystopia as those who lead and profit from it. Also, what is the guarantee that those not-so-bad 80% won’t find a new and equally bad group of leaders? So option 3 would actually a more just option than option 2.
But what about option 4? Superficially it looks like the most inhumane and unjust option. Many would question the ethics and morality of causing the death of the nicer 10% of that society. Surely, they are not part of the problem.. or are they? A complex system is best understood by how it behaves in real life, rather than how it is supposed to behave in theory. To put it another way- if the supposed kindness, good will and altruism of the 10% was real, you would never even consider using the device- let alone choose an option for the dial.
The very fact that you would are actively weighing the pros and cons of the ‘right’ setting for the device implies that the society in question has failed you. Furthermore, the fact that it has not actually gotten sufficiently better over 2-3 decades to make you hopeful about the future suggests that it will not become substantially better. The worse 10% mediocre 80% and outwardly kind 10% are just a continuum rather than distinct groups. Reducing the size of such a system to favor one part of the continuum will eventually replicate the previous dystopia. Basically, you have nothing to lose by choosing option 4 since it alone can solve the problem forever.
What do you think? Comments?
The last few days have seen almost continuous mass-media and internet coverage of a series of terrorist attacks in Paris which started with the Charlie Hebdo shooting and ended with the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. As many of you know, incidents of this type have become a somewhat regular feature of the global news cycle. While the locations, details, casualties and scale of such incidents vary – they all seem to share a common storyline.
They are perpetrated by devout muslim men within a specific age range and almost always living in a country where muslims are the minority. While the exact reason given by the perpetrators changes from incident to incident, it almost always involves some perceived insult or injustice to their professed religion.
So, what is going on? Why are such incidents almost always perpetrated by the followers of one particular religion? What makes them so sensitive to real or perceived slights to their invisible friend or his long dead supposed human mouthpiece? Why are they so interested in making others accommodate their religious belief system? Well.. I will save my answers to those questions for another post. Instead, I will focus on a most peculiar phenomena seen in western countries in response to such incidents.
One of the most consistent public ritual seen in western countries after such an incident are the almost unanimous statements by political leaders, public intellectuals and mass media personalities which loudly proclaim that the incident in question had nothing to do with religion (specifically Islam). They then go on to claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the perpetrators were not “real” Muslims.
Many readers might have noticed that these public rituals and proclamations have become more predictable than the terrorist incidents that necessitate them. But why are the official governmental responses of western countries to Islam-inspired terrorism so oddly similar? Also, why don’t such incidents have any worthwhile effect on relevant governmental policies such as immigration or integration?
Now, there are some who believe that such a peculiar set of official responses and oversight are deliberate and part of a nefarious conspiracy to “islamize” western countries. Others see this state of affairs as a result of the “west” losing its way, will, vital force or mojo. Some think that the west has become too soft and decadent or is racked by post-imperialist guilt. I believe that the answer lies elsewhere and involves far less conspiracy, organization or even thinking. But before we go there, let us quickly examine a few popular theories on why westerns countries are being unusually accommodating to militant Islam. For sake of simplicity, I will divide existing popular theories on this subject into two camps.
The first camp consists of theories centered on the idea that the peculiar response of western governments to islam-inspired terrorism is part of some great conspiracy. These theories require us to believe that western politicians and public intellectuals are very smart, highly organised extremely greedy and working according to some master scheme to somehow gain more power or retain it in the future. While the mental image of very smart, organised, greedy politicians and public intellectuals scheming to create a world that would make them richer or stronger is appealing and would make a great book or movie- it is simply not true. The vast majority of political leaders and public intellectuals end up their positions because of some combination of luck, accident of birth and internal intrigue. To put it another way- they are not especially intelligent, competent or farsighted.
Theories from the second camp, in contrast to those from the first, are centered around a different myth. This particular myth is rooted in the idea that whites (especially those in western countries) are intrinsically superior to others in all respects- but especially in matters of public and private morality. Of course, this myth totally ignores actual historical facts such as genocides of indigenous people on multiple continents, slavery and its relationship with capitalism, multiple revolutions, myriad wars and both world wars. Anyway, proponents of theories in the second camp see the “west” as having become too soft, decadent, unwilling to effectively confront external enemies etc. But is that really the case? The USA had no problems going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan or conducting warfare and drone strikes in countries like Pakistan or Yemen. Furthermore countries like UK, Australia, France and Canada have joint participants in one or more of such military operations.
It is therefore clear that both camps of popular theories are inadequate to explain the most peculiar response of western political leaders and public intellectuals to islam-inspired terrorism. But what if there is another explanation for such behavior- one that does not require you to invoke complex machinations or unrealistic beliefs.
Over the last couple of months, I had written a few articles about SJWs- especially Why SJWs Want to Censor Games While Studiously Avoiding Rap Music and The Priorities of SJW Activism Expose their Real Motivations. In the later, I said the following:
Pseudo-activists or SJWs have no interest in solving problems other than increasing their public status, power and income. They are just parasites exploiting existing niches for their lifestyle created by pre-existing system dysfunction. Also, SJWs do not actually believe in the ideologies they profess at every public occasion. Their publicly stated beliefs and ideologies are simply covers for their real motivations, namely- becoming rich and famous by screwing over other people.
So what does this have to do with the way western political leaders and public intellectuals respond to islam-inspired terrorism. Well.. a lot! To understand what I am going to say next, you have first look at the social contract (or the lack thereof) in pre-WW2 western countries. As many of you know, the pre-WW2 west had tons of poverty, deprivation, coercion and lacked anything approaching a functional social safety net. This widespread misery in the midst of technological progress and selective prosperity resulted in many social pathologies such as extreme nationalism, both world wars, many right-wing and left-wing totalitarian governments etc. It also gave rise to the modern socialist liberal movement.
In the aftermath of WW2, many older ideologies and socio-economic compacts were discarded because they were either useless or dangerous. In the west, socialist liberalism was pretty much the only ideology left standing. Moreover, its implementation delivered a very rapid and widespread increase in the material living standards of countries that adopted it. Even today, all developed country (including the USA) are pretty close to the original socialist liberal path. And this brings us to another question.
Why has the general adoption of socialist liberal policies not eliminated poverty and unnecessary material deprivation in developed countries?
This is far from a trivial question. As many of you know, the ability and resources to ensure that everybody living in developed countries enjoys a stable middle-class lifestyle has existed for the last few decades- but somehow it has never translated into the elimination of obvious poverty or materiel deprivation. Sure.. most people in developed countries still enjoy a decent, if somewhat unstable, lifestyle. But why has the acquisition and maintenance of a decent and stable lifestyle become progressively harder in developed countries in the last two decades?
The short answer is that it comes down to human nature. People like to abuse, steal from, impoverish and kill other people- even if they have enough. Consequently, all stable hierarchical societies will end up progressively impoverishing the majority of people in that society. This occurs whether the society is a pre-industrial kingdom or a post-industrial liberal socialist society. Furthermore all human hierarchies promote and are ultimately lead by the most short-sighted, deceptive, greedy and cruel individuals in that society.
That is why mainstream political leaders, public intellectuals and mass-media talking heads throughout the “west” now seldom seriously contemplate, discuss or propose effective action against issues like endemic poverty, progressive impoverishment or economic inequality. However they are also unable to redefine themselves as anything other than socialist liberals. Infact, it is pretty much impossible to govern as anything other than a socialist liberal in this day and age.
Consequently, they overcompensate by promoting nebulous and hard-to-oppose ideas such as “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “tolerance”, “increased immigration” etc.
The problem of islam-inspired terrorism is therefore just an “unexpected” side-effect of modern official socialistic liberal overcompensation. Of course, nobody in power (especially sociopathic courtiers) want to admit that they were wrong and therefore fallible and not totally in control. So they make excuses and try to divert attention away from them. In any case, the political leaders, public intellectuals and media people in most western countries do not see their fates as being tied to the countries they live in. Therefore they have little interest in the ultimate outcome of their policies and decisions.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, the last few months have seen many highly publicized incidents of state sanctioned extra-judicial murders of unarmed black men. While there is some variation in the exact circumstances of each “incident”- it is clear that all of the publicized incidents from the shooting death of Michael Brown, the choking death of Eric Gardner, the shooting of Tamir Rice to the shooting Akai Gurley have some peculiar similarities.
1. In all these incidents, the extra-judicially executed black men posed no real physical threat to the cops who murdered them.
2. In every single one of these cases the decision to kill the black man in question was made very hastily and under circumstances that do not stand up to scrutiny.
3. After the murder, the local police and the lackeys in the MSM tried to uncover any “evidence” that might cast the murder victims in a poor light.
4. Perhaps most curiously, in each case the police did not attempt to provide medical assistance after the shooting or promptly call for EMS.
5. In every single case, the police have spent a lot of time and effort trying to deny or tarnish the legitimacy of community outrage against what is clearly murder.
So what is going on? Why are white cops killing unarmed black men? And why are these incidents attracting so much attention even though the murder victims are not supposedly the “perfect” black murder victim.
The cynical among you, and me, would say that white cops killing unarmed black men is actually how the american “justice” system was mean to work.
The murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Sam Shepherd, and countless thousands of others at the hands of American law enforcement are not aberrations, or betrayals, or departures. The acquittals of their killers are not mistakes. There is no virtuous innermost America, sullied or besmirched or shaded by these murders. This is America. It is not broken. It is doing what it does.
Policing in America is not broken. The judicial system is not broken. American society is not broken. All are functioning perfectly, doing exactly what they have done since before some of this nation’s most prosperous slave-murdering robber-barons came together to consecrate into statehood the mechanisms of their barbarism. Democracy functions. Politicians, deriving their legitimacy from the public, have discerned the will of the people and used it to design and enact policies that carry it out, among them those that govern the allowable levels of violence which state can visit upon citizen.
Taken together with the myriad other indignities, thefts, and cruelties it visits upon black and brown people, and the work common white Americans do on its behalf by telling themselves bald fictions of some deep and true America of apple pies, Jesus, and people being neighborly to each other and betrayed by those few and nonrepresentative bad apples with their isolated acts of meanness, the public will demands and enables a whirring and efficient machine that does what it does for the benefit of those who own it. It processes black and brown bodies into white power.
I quoted the three best paragraphs from that article on deadspin.com because they say what almost no MSM journalist aka presstitute would dare to imply, let alone say loudly. So the state-sanctioned and nominally extra-judicial murder of black men is actually business as usual. Of course, there have been some superficial cosmetic changes since the “good old days” when good, god-fearing white christian families posed alongside the mutilated corpses of lynched black men.
Today the killings are done by a few people with uniforms and without the pomp and ceremony that accompanied the murder of black men in previous eras. While such changes were probably disappointing to all those small-dicked, god-fearing, white christian men- it allowed the american government to pretend that it had ended overt racism. Also, it was kinda hard to lecture other countries about “democracy” and “the rule of law” when it was obvious that you were full of shit.
This transformation in state policy occurred between the 1930s (last public lynchings) and the immediate aftermath of the 1968 riots (post-MLK assassination) and was made possible by two factors. Firstly- the government was able to stop public lynchings of black men and replace them with murder by cop. Secondly- the almost exclusively white mainstream media could be relied upon to withhold information, spread disinformation and generally act as the governments handmaiden. This state of affairs held until the Rodney King incident in 1992 when an amateur video recording of a bunch of white cops beating a black man eventually caused a riot in the second largest city in the USA.
But even then, the government was able to use the mainstream media to eventually bring things under control. As many of you know, mainstream media was able to dominate public conversation at that time because there was no cheap or inexpensive way to broadcast your message, thoughts or video clips in the pre- or early- internet era. We also got dozens of “Law and Order” and “CIS” shows that tried very hard to brainwash simple-minded people that the system was just and fair. But then the second (FB/ Twitter/ YouTube/ Huffingtonpost) and third (smartphone) internet wave happened and caused irreversible changes to the underlying system conditions.
The proliferation of the products of the second wave enhanced content sharing in addition to destroying the financial stability of traditional mainstream media- especially print. Using products of the second internet wave also exposed people to ideas and concepts that they probably never had previously heard about in addition to tearing down the public images and facades of the product of mainstream media- from “experts” to famous journalists and the themes of popular TV shows. It is no secret that pretty much all of the older hit TV sitcoms would have never reached their iconic stature in the post-internet age.
And this brings us to the first reason why the old setup cannot suppress or explain away the state-sanctioned murder of black men. To put it simply, the MSM which was the main tool of the american government to control and shape public discourse has lost credibility- even in the eyes of many younger whites. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself- when is the last time you made your kind about something exclusively based on what you read in the newspaper, saw on the news or heard on the radio show? Don’t remember.. ya, I thought so.
The second and related reason for this change is that ubiquitous presence of digital camera in smartphones make recording and sharing of controversial incidents extremely easy. And then there is the issue of ubiquitous private surveillance cameras. It is therefore no surprise that we now often have multiple video clips for a single incident of white cops murdering a black man. The old strategy of using the sworn testimony of supposedly “truthful” white cops to counter accusations by black men and women just does not work well, if at all, anymore.
The third, and perhaps just as important reason, for the change resides in how blacks and increasingly marginalized whites now see the system. You might recall that the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s spent a lot of effort in trying to find the “right” black victim. They did so in the mistaken belief that appealing to the decency of white people was a good strategy. Well.. it wasn’t.
It is no secret the the mass public incarceration and disenfranchisement of black men began after the apparent success of the civil right movement. Over those decades, most younger blacks and increasingly marginalized whites have realized that appealing to the sense of justice and fairness of hypocritical CONservative whites is a futile exercise. That is why the supposed minor “criminal” records of the black victims have no effect on the willingness of people to demand justice for them.
Will write much more in upcoming parts of this series.
What do you think? Comments?
One of the more interesting, if seldom asked, question that follows from the intense interest of SJWs in censoring video games is follows:
Why are SJWs and their accomplices focusing their “activism” on certain forms of entertainment such as comic books and video games, while conspicuously ignoring the same issues in other forms such as various subtypes of rap/hip-hop music, popular non-network TV shows and movies?
Some of you might say that SJWs and their accomplices have already tried interfering in those forms- with very limited success. Well.. that is partially true, but there is much more to the story of why they failed to have any significant impact on rap music, movies and non-network TV shows.
Let us try to understand why certain forms of entertainment, such as rap music, have successfully resisted interference from SJWs. As some of you might know, the lyrics and imagery of rap/hip-hop music was considered scandalous throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, many famous proto-SJWs spent a lot of time and effort on concerted attempts to censor rap music. As many of you also know, these proto-SJWs failed so miserably that much of what (lyrics, language, behavior and dancing moves) was considered scandalous barely 20 years is now nauseatingly mainstream.
So why did SJWs fail to censor rap music in the late 1980s, and what can we learn from that massive failure?
The more cynical of you might say that rap music succeeded because white suburban kids loved transgressive black music- and there is some truth to that. But there is far more to this story than white suburban kids who bough records to look cool and piss off their parents. Start by comparing the behavior and personal lives of famous singers and musicians from various popular genres. Why are white rock stars (even those in certain popular 80s bands) widely, and correctly, perceived as less masculine than similar famous black rappers?
It comes down to how each group tries to achieve social acceptance, respectability and fame.
White musicians, like most other white morons, believe that social acceptance, fame and respectability is achieved by striving, begging and compromising. They also believe in popular scams like meritocracy and hard work. Most black musicians in contrast, understand that popularity in the music industry is some combination of intrinsic talent and plain dumb luck. They have also figured out that all that talk about meritocracy and hard work are lies meant to enrich a few white assholes at the expense of everybody else. Perhaps most importantly, they have figured out something that eludes most white morons- all that talk about social acceptance and respect from people who will abandon you, at the proverbial drop of a hat, is dishonest and meaningless.
The thoughts and actions of most black rappers are therefore not constrained by delusional attempts at gaining worthless social acceptance and respectability. Instead, they want real things like fame and money.
White musicians usually ask, beg and grovel for something that their black equivalents rightly demand. This slavish desire for worthless social acceptance and respectability also makes white musicians far more susceptible to compromise in the face of manufactured media campaigns- such as those run by SJWs. In contrast, most black musicians have little interest in gaining such worthless social respectability and are therefore largely immune from manufactured media campaigns to shame them or make them censor themselves.
Then there is the angle of plausible threats- or more precisely, who is afraid of whom.
Most black musicians, especially rappers, are not afraid of risky physical confrontations- to put it mildly. Nor are they afraid of living in poverty, as most of them grew up in less than affluent households. But perhaps most importantly, they inspire visceral fear in the minds of SJWs. Would those Sarkesian or Quinn critters dare to go up against some black rapper who has been shot and jailed a few times? Would they? and if not, why not?
My point is that leading a manufactured “moral crusade” against socially awkward white guys is far less physically risky than doing that against guys who have injured and killed people for disrespecting them.
In case you were wondering, fear is also the reason SJWs will almost never target big time TV shows and movie producers. Of course, in this case it is the fear of armies of lawyers and being blacklisted by those who have money. And let us be clear about something, those Sarkesian and Quinn critters are in it for attention, money and power- not social justice. They will never bite the hands that might feed or throw a few crumbs at them. SJWs are attacking gamers because they believe that have a chance at winning without any real physical, legal or financial risk. They also believe that gamers, being mostly socially awkward men, can be scammed into defeat via lies about losing social respect and acceptability.
What do you think? Comments?