Posts Tagged ‘identity politics’

Identity Politics is the Western Equivalent of Caste Politics In India

February 23, 2020 35 comments

Most regular readers are aware that I detest SJW, wokeism and everything else associated with identity politics. While some reasons behind my contempt of this performative bullshit scam are common to most other critics, one of them is distinctly unique- and is summarized in the title of this post. As some of you might rember, I wrote a series about why the caste system was, and still is, so damaging to Indians. For the purposes of this post, the gist is as follows: The caste or ‘jati’ system created so many stupid divisions in Indian society that it has become almost totally dysfunctional for the past 1,500 years. It also created a mindset which lacks the capability for critical thought and reason. To make a long story short, much of what is wrong with that country today can be traced back to the ‘jati’ system.

And this brings us to a question which I did not tackle in that series- namely, what explains the persistence of such a stupid and shitty social system? How can a system which disadvantages the majority of its followers, in a multitude of ways, still remain popular among them? To be fair, this issue is not unique to the caste system since a similar argument can be made about any other religion. In my opinion, it comes down to how the caste or ‘jati’ system shapes power- or more precisely, how it reproduces itself at societal level. See.. one of central tenet of the ‘jati’ system is that only somebody of your own ‘jati’ can be trusted to represent your interests. In other words, only somebody of your own caste or ‘jati’ can be your leader and since there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ‘jatis’ there can also never be a broadly recognized leader or group of leaders.

Sure.. you can have national figureheads who are reasonably popular among the majority, but they simply do not command the power and reach of their equivalents in, say, China or USA. But why does this matter and how is any of this related to contemporary identity politics in the west. For starters, many of you must have realized by now that the core tenet of identity politics is that only somebody from your own ‘group’ can ever be a legitimate leader of people from said group. According to them, only a woman can truly represent the interests of women, a gay man of gay men, a “trans woman” of “trans women” etc. The corollary of this belief is that no society can have a legitimate leader and leadership acceptable to most people in it. But why is this belief so problematic? Wouldn’t people be best represented by others who are “like” them?

Well.. let us have a look at this issue by analyzing the one example of identity politics which is well established in USA. It is no secret that almost every single black politician who has been elected to any office in this country has achieved that position because of the strong support of black voters. Ya, sure.. there are some major historical reasons for why this is the case. But let me ask you another question- can you think of a single major black political figure who has done anything other than ignore his or her constituents once elected to office. A few, such as Obama, have actually championed policies which preferentially immiserated their most ardent supporters. Instead, the vast majority of black politicians do nothing beyond using their position for enriching themselves and their friends and relatives while acting as the ‘help’ for white politicians who want to maintain the shitty status quo.

Funny thing.. this is exactly how caste-based politics plays out in India. All the idiots who vote for politicians from their own castes get nothing worthwhile in return, while those elected to office go on to amass millions and billions through graft and scams in addition to preferential treatment of relatives and friends. Their supporters then get angry and frequently vote them out in the next election cycle by selecting a new bunch of scammers through the same thought process- if you can call it that. Guess what, the same thing happens again and the voters go back to the previous bunch of scammers. And the cycle goes on.. And now you know why China can get everything done properly on time while India can’t seem to get anything important done, let alone on time. My point is that identity politics is a recipe for stagnation, decay and ultimately, chaos.

Moving back to the situation in USA and west in general.. How has, for example, selecting more women as CEOs of large corporations improved the overall quality of lives for most women? Has it increased their paycheck, given them better job security, a longer paid maternity leaves or otherwise improved the quality of their children’s lives etc? It hasn’t! The only thing it has achieved is the elevation of a minuscule number of women to positions where they can be as greedy and asshole-ish as the very few men they replaced. The same is true, perhaps even more so, for black politicians and black “business leaders”, whose much publicized rise has not resulted in any worthwhile improvement in the conditions of the constituency they allegedly represent.

This also applies for gay politicians and “business leaders”. Has Apple suddenly started making better products because their current CEO is gay or has it somehow improved the material conditions for gay men in USA? The same is true for efforts to promote a few token lesbians, latinos and other ethnic minorities. Putting a few more non-white or non-straight people in positions of power, while simultaneously maintaining the previous status quo, is a scam- and an especially dangerous one. Letting the ‘alphabet people’ aka the LGBTQ..whatever enlarge this scam will only make things worse. Have a look at the political scene, aka the chaos, in India- where nothing of importance or significance gets done, but everyone in politics is constantly shouting at each other andaccusing everybody else of “corruption”- while wearing ridiculous headgear to show their caste credentials. It does makes for good theater though..

In summary, identity politics is a dangerous scam and should be seen as the contemporary western equivalent of caste politics in India. Though it is being currently promoted by elites to maintain the status quo, it will metamorphose into something far more uncontrollable- which in turn will end up creating a highly fragmented, polarized and dysfunctional society.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 5

September 25, 2019 12 comments

In the previous part of this series, I promised to finally go into why support for certain superficial liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. I also made the point that most allegedly “popular” causes in liberalism, such as “gun control” and “LGBTQ” issues, are secular religions in all but name. So let us ask the next question- which traditional religion does modern liberalism most closely resemble? While modern liberalism displays some similarities to Christianity, especially its Catholic variant, it differs from from the later in some very important aspects. Specifically, liberalism is heavily dependent on the use of identity politics, constantly changing taboos and a peculiar form of abstract “spirituality” to enforce its writ among followers.

In other words, modern liberalism cannot function without increasing inter-group factionalism, constantly changing taboos and overt public displays of abstract “spirituality”. Enumerating all the stuff it ignores is even more revealing. For example- liberalism does not care about gross income inequality, horrible working conditions, shitty personal lives and many other issues that actually affect most people living in post-industrial societies. In contrast to liberalism, many traditional religions such as Christianity and Islam try to increase group cohesion, get new members, keep taboos clearly defined and to a minimum in addition to (at least) giving lip service to ideas such basic human equality, dignity and charity. So.. is there a closer match for Liberalism?

As it turns out.. Hinduism is a far closer match to modern Liberalism than almost any other major traditional religion. As I repeatedly mentioned in a previous (and still incomplete) series, almost every major problem that has plagued the India and its people since about 300 AD can be traced back to Hinduism- specifically the spread and consolidation of the ‘jati’ system throughout India. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Hinduism, as has existed since about 300 AD, is nothing more than an excuse to perpetuate the ‘jati’ system. So what makes Hinduism the traditional equivalent of modern Liberalism? Well, let us start by talking about how both use identity politics to divide society into ever smaller groups that hate each other.

Some of you might want to believe that white liberals invented identity politics, but that is simply not true. The ever fragmenting ‘jati’ system in India pioneered and refined identity politics many centuries before white liberals were a thing. The core of Hinduism (as understood and practiced by most believers) is identity politics. That is why most Indians still make important decisions, from voting to marrying, almost exclusively based on whether the other party is of the same or similar ‘jati’. But why are ideologies that preach social fragmentation bad? The simple answer is that societies which accept such fissiparous ideologies end up becoming unable to get stuff done. There is a reason why China was able to achieve in 30 years what India appears unlikely to get done anytime in the foreseeable future.

This is also why India was colonized by followers of two foreign monotheistic religions for over a thousand years. Long story short, societies which are based around identity politics lose their ability to get stuff done and become vulnerable to domination by more cohesive ones. But what does any of this have to do with the democratic party losing the elections in 2020 and beyond? As mentioned in previous posts, the public image of democrats is increasingly defined by being part of the top 10% or aspiring to join that group. But why is that a problem? Think about it this way.. the number of eligible voters who did not vote for either candidate in the 2016 election was larger than the number who voted for either HRC or Trump. Also the plurality of vote cast by the non-professional or credentialed class go to republicans.

Some of you might attribute this to racism and there is some truth to that viewpoint. However a far larger issue, which I have alluded to in a previous post, concerns how each party treats its voters. Republicans do not insult their voters while they are fucking them over unlike their democratic counterparts. To put it another way, the republican religion is a noticeably more inclusive than its democratic equivalent. But isn’t their appeal restricted to white voters? Well.. yes, but as many of you saw in 2016- democrats were unable to motivate enough young non-white voters to go out and vote for them.

A secular religion centered around “gun control”, “forced diversity”, “manmade climate change”, MeToo”, “gender fluidity”, “wokeness” and numerous other fashionable causes and ever changing social taboos simply cannot compete with another which is far more straightforward, inclusive (as long as your are white) and does not require you to debase yourself quite that much. The secular religion of democrats also does not provide solutions to far more prevalent problems such as inadequate healthcare, poor job security, ever increasing cost of university education etc. Their democratic brand of secular religion is simply too exclusive and full of useless and ever-changing rituals to appeal to the majority of voters across this country.

Will write more about this point of view in next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 4

September 20, 2019 14 comments

In the previous part of this series, I wrote about how politicians who dutifully recite their allegedly traditional beliefs and pieties can no longer compete with those willing to push beyond previous boundaries of what was considered “routine”, “polite” or “acceptable”. We have reached this point because, over the past four decades, living standards for the vast majority of people have either stagnated or deteriorated. The majority, therefore, no longer feel that a better future is possible. This is why the stale and canned pseudo-populist antics of people such as Reagan40, Clinton42, Bush43, Obama44 and their ilk are no longer sufficient to win elections. Now, we will go into why the current democrat party obsession with “gun control”, “LGTBTQ issues” and other supposedly “woke issues” fashionable with the incestuous and effete “elite” of modern day america.

A couple of years ago, I first wrote about how “wokeness” is largely driven by neoliberals trying to show that they are morally superior to the rest. Since then, we have seen a concerted push by the effete managerial class and every politician who wants to pretend that they too are somehow morally superior to push “solutions” for problems which do not exist. Even worse, in almost all cases their “solutions” either make things worse, cause public backlash and provide ammunition to their equally despicable opponents in the so-called ‘culture wars’. There is a reason why almost everyone in this country, other than those who live in a few exclusive zip codes, see ideas such a “plastic straw ban” or unrealistic fuel consumption guidelines for cars as bad and stupid. And in case you are wondering, the recent proliferation of crossovers in USA has a lot to do with how such automobiles are classified for the purpose of fuel economy standards.

So what does any of this have to with the promotion of electorally disastrous issues such as “gun control”, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism by the democratic party? Well.. a lot. But before we go there, let me clear about a couple of things. While republicans screw their voter-base as much as democrats, they do so without insulting them like the later. Secondly, seemingly unconnected issues promoted by many democrats such as “gun control, LGBTQ issues and environmentalism are closely related, but not for the reasons most of you might have guessed. This is not to say that virtue display has no role in the promotion of such bullshit policies. But while virtue display can explain behaviors such as adopting non-white children, being vegetarian or vegan, driving a Prius and donating to certain charities, it cannot explain the deep obsession of core democrat constituencies with issues such as “gun control” and promotion of LGBTQ.

But what is the difference between adopting a non-white child or going vegetarian and pushing for “gun control” and promoting LGBTQ. Well.. it comes down to doing something yourself versus trying to manipulate of force others to do things your way. For example, almost nobody who has adopted an African child or driven a Prius is forcing you to do the same. But those who allegedly believe in “gun control” and “gender fluidity” want to take away the guns of other people and castrate their children, all in the name of “social progress”. Most of the enduring, and unpopular, hobbyhorses of the democratic party center around top-down control of the lives and behaviors of those “other” people. That is right.. most issues animating the core white constituency of democratic party are about credentialed types and managers trying to control other people.

But to what end? And why are establishment democrats so tone deaf to the unpopularity of their hobby horses. Sure.. focusing on such cultural issues also allows them to ignore real issues such as the desperate need for affordable healthcare, post-secondary education, housing stock etc. Having said that, it mostly comes down to the need to exert power (for its own sake) over other people, not unlike what is presented in George Orwell’s’ 1984. Promoting issues such as “gun control”, “gender fluidity” and environmentalism is about using the framework of a traditional religion to push for its secular equivalent. Did I mention that all religions are about making other people go along with lies and bullshit fairytales to further your control over them.

Religions have another feature that is relevant to this discussion. All the “truths” and “causes” espoused by any given religion cannot be disproved or questioned. This is why establishment democrats who cannot tell the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire rifle will never change their mind on that subject. It was never about “facts”, “truth” or anything approaching reality. Belief in the righteousness of “gun control” is part of the gospel of coastal american liberalism. Similarly, belief in the validity of “wokeness”, “gender fluidity” and other similar new sacraments of american liberalism has nothing to do with acting in the best interest of other people or children. Do you really think they care if tens of thousands of gender-atypical children get wrongfully castrated and suffer permanent psychological damage because of their beliefs?

Some of you might remember that I recently posted a series about how belief in anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalyptism. In it, I also made the case that the belief in man-made climate change has massive parallels to Catholicism. The part relevant to this post is who benefited from religions such as Catholicism. To make a long story short, the only groups and institutions who really benefit from Catholicism (or any other religion) are the clergy, church, contemporary ruling elites and their stooges. Everyone else suffers necessary deprivation and immiseration. But this, you see, is a central feature of all organized religions- not a bug.

Since we are at almost 1000 words, I will wrap up this post. In the next part, I will go into why support for these liberal causes is going to backfire on democrats during the 2020 elections. Yes.. I am aware that it was supposed to be in this part.

What do you think? Comments?

Using Identity Politics to Justify Being an Asshole Will Create Blowback

August 5, 2019 7 comments

Over the past decade, I have noticed a peculiar but unsustainable trend in western societies. In the past, certain sexual minority groups such as gays, lesbians etc were unfairly persecuted and socially marginalized. Over the past 2-3 decades, this has generally changed for the better with alternative sexual orientations being increasingly accepted to be within the range of normality by majority. For example, marriages between same-sex couples in many western countries is today seen as no less normal than those between heterosexual couples. Workplace discrimination due to alternate sexual orientation is far less common than even twenty years ago. All these changes have lead to a more equal society- at least, as far as sexual orientation is concerned.

However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, there are many signs that some of these changes have led to the rise of identity politics and “wokeism”. As some of you might remember, a few months ago, I wrote a post or two about how the ideology of transgenderism is likely to lose public support in near future. The main thread running through both posts was that trying to force acceptance through legal chicanery and identity politics would inevitably antagonize many far larger groups who would otherwise have not cared, one way or the other. Putting effort into creating enemies where none would be necessary, has always struck me as especially stupid way to go through life. Then again, inflated egos are usually the cause of most man-made disasters.

This problem is, however, bigger than most people want to believe. Over these years, I have also noticed another similar and potentially even more problematic trend. This comes in two major and non mutually-exclusive forms. The first involves celebrities, journalists and other public figures of alternate sexual orientation using it as a justification for being moral superior to the heterosexual majority. To be clear, I am nor referring to jokes about straight weddings being full of poorly dressed people or gay men being usually far better dressed than straight men- both of which are accurate observations. I am referring to repeated instances of said public figures invoking their sexual orientation to justify their assholish behavior, sense of entitlement and belief in their intrinsic moral superiority over all those ‘other people’.

To me, their attitudes and behaviors are eerily reminiscent of old-fashioned racism, where race has been replaced by sexual orientation. But why is it problematic? Well.. to put it very bluntly, successfully pulling of this shit for an extended length of time requires that group to be either a demographic majority or incredibly rich while also not being a small minority (less than 5% of population). Trying to pull this shit when you are not in the position to back up your swagger with anything beyond shaming language, some money and legal chicanery does not end well, as seen repeatedly in history. While I am deliberately not identifying the many historical parallels, many of you can read between the lines to identify them.. right?

The second, and overlapping trend, involves them trying to force deference from the heterosexual majority. While this trend is new, it is very easy to find examples of this on social media sites as well as real life. In my opinion, this trend is significantly more problematic than the first because it is possible for people to partially ignore people who act like self-entitled pricks- but ignoring idiots who want to use legal chicanery about their sexual orientation to browbeat others for things which have nothing to do with sexuality carries a serious risk of eventual backlash. Once again, to be clear, we are not talking about whether some bakery refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or something along those lines. Instead, this is about people using made-up outrages to get people fired from jobs, deplatformed from social media, etc.

As mentioned in a previous post, the successes of the LGB (yes, I deliberately omitted certain alphabets) movement in western countries has a lot to do with it occurring in an era of increasing prosperity and overall economic well-being. The period between 1970 to early 2000s was a pretty decent time to be an average person in western countries. While the drift towards neoliberalism had started in the 1980s, shit did not really hit the fan till middle of first decade of this century. It was this relatively stable and generally prosperous environment that allowed the sexual majority to start empathizing sexual minorities. People tend to be generous when times are good.

As readers will know, that period ended somewhere between 2005 and 2008. To make matters worse, “wokeness” and other related bullshit mentioned above started entering into the public sphere in a big way in around 2012, which (in my opinion) is also the time when most people in the west finally realized that their system in a terminal downward spiral. Smarter people would have resisted the urge to play little power games which offered no long-term gain, but quite a few of these people (especially in coastal cities) appear to have decided that this was the right moment to assert their self-proclaimed ‘moral superiority’ and flex the muscles of legal chicanery to show who is the boss. It did not help that many are public figures with high media visibility.

To summarize, it is very likely that such attitudes and behaviors will result in a backlash from the sexual majority. Also, sexual minorities unlike ethnic or racial minorities will always remain minorities. Indeed, some of this blowback is already visible and is one of the reasons why Trump was able to dominate the republican presidency and get elected in 2016. You do realize that many of loudest “woke” assholes who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for their pathetic attitudes and malicious behaviors go out of their way to identify themselves as loyal democrats.

What do you think? Comments?

An Excellent Two Part Critique of Amy Schumer’s Comedy on Youtube

April 30, 2019 4 comments

A few weeks ago, I came across an excellent critique of Amy Schumer on YouTube. However, it was only the first of a supposedly two(?) part series. Well.. the second part was posted yesterday and it is as good as the first. As regular readers know, it is my firm belief that most comedians are not funny. My views on the talent (or its lack) in female comedians are also well known. Also, I once wrote a post about how most female comedians were intrinsically unfunny.

The person who made the YT videos I am linking to also seems to think along those lines. And while I have not seen every video he has posted, these two seems to be especially good. It does not hurt that he dissects the career of possibly the most overrated and incompetent female comic of this decade, aka Amy Schumer. The first video goes into some depth about the many factors and social milieu which facilitated her rapid rise in public consciousness.

The first video is almost 44 minutes long and covers many topics which surround her rise to fame (or infamy). And ya, it goes into detail about her tendency to steal jokes and why so many male comics are reluctant to call it out. The short version is that it has a lot to do with her being a white woman who fucked the right guys in addition to dabbling in diversity and identity politics.

The second part is about 40 minutes long and goes into detail about how she plays the diversity and identity cards. Specifically, it details how her “comedy” acts are now almost exclusively about virtue signalling and making “woke” people feel self-righteous and good about supporting “woke” female “comics”. She is basically selling the contemporary version of catholic indulgences. Then again, nobody went broke underestimating the capacity for self-delusion displayed by american sheeple. I have a feeling that readers are going to enjoy this two-part series about that woman.

What do you think? Comments?