Friday, June 2, 2017

Dangers of Academic Neo-Stalinism; The Proglodyte Dilemma of Serving the Progoligarchs; The Power of Hedonics in Culture and Politics.

For the progs, Free Speech was always a tactic, not a principle. They were for when it served their interests. But now that Free Speech challenges and exposes their corruption and abuses, it is 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know that the notion of 'hate speech' is just mind-control tactic to control the discourse, but bottom-feeding antifa dummies are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as minions and goons.

It looks like neo-stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them.
Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip over his minions, the neo-stalinist professors don't. Likewise, even as Mao unleashed the crazy Red Guards, he had the power to clamp down anytime he wanted. So when things got out of order, he sent the military into the cities and sent the students to the countryside(to serve the people).
In contrast, neo-stalinist or neo-maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak to serve as lid on the pressure cooker of nutball ideology.

Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they don't articulate it, the contradictions can be sensed.
Our world is about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity made it nearly impossible to have the middle class as the defining and dominant group in America. It is now about the winner class and the loser class. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.

But such political attitudes have been nullified since the rise of boomers. With Jews taking elite power away from Wasps, leftist politics became less focused on class and more on minority-identity. So, rich Jewish minority now have more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristocratic homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans.
Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish 'poor white trash' from someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. Indeed, because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they get less hatred than white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism does nothing for them).
With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich isn't as ideologically correct. Why, it might be deemed 'antisemitic'. Also, as the rich classes now fund homomania and diversity, they are seen as engines of 'progress'. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee.
Also, as elite colleges are now virtually entirely 'progressive', the future winners who will hog all the wealth and privilege enjoy the defense shield of PC. I mean, how can they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies playing in womens sports and peeing in the ladies room'?

So, this had led to a strange kind of ideological schizophrenia. The NATURAL thing for proglodytes to do is to attack the winners as the hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has refashioned itself as bobo hipster proggy.
Even in the 80s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose such mentality. In the post-60s era, the boomer professionals were so into success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Clinton, they formulated a way to seek success AND shroud themselves with progginess. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday or from class politics to ass politics. This worked like a magic glove because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to server the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of the 'progressivism', the main theme came to be about fancy vain homos toying with politics to serve the economic interests of Jewish elites and rich boomers. It all became whoopy-pee-poo.

This robbed the proglodytes of the opportunity to bash their true enemies. If progs are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies are the rich class. But the rich class is now 'progressive' and, furthermore, the main theme of 'progressivism' is forcing people to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and having men in dress wee-wee in women's room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that the proglodytes in the US and EU are sooooooo worked up about silly issues about trannies and worship of homo fecal penetration.

Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges and/or more prestigious majors who will rake in all the dough. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will gain the most success. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and various schools of resentment will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place.
So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though these emotions as masked as 'justice'), the proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world.
But since prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism'. Since today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel they must be admire and support the rich progoligarchs.
But if loser proglodytes must still scream, rant, and hate on something. After all, that is what radical politics is all about. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the powerful(who are now for 'gay marriage'), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.

But then, these wussy professors brought in on themselves by favoring neo-stalinism. Now, by 'neo-stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically stalinist. I highly doubt if any leftist professor wants forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'. By neo-stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance.
Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical, they are more likely to be for free discourse than less brilliant people are. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their abilities to argue and dominate. This was why Trotsky failed against Stalin. Now, Trotsky was autocratic and ruthless himself. But he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he would win out with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He would organize an army of cadre who were dim but obedient. They would be loyal to him like dogs and would attack anyone he set them upon.

The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the stalinist way over the trotsky way. They'd rather create an army of pseudo-intellectual goons who will learn and obey than learn to be critical. They are more taboosters than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers.
The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are crazy negroes). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to rein in any outbreak of excessive radicalism, the neo-stalinist professors are helpless when the goons bark and bite at them.

But then, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism seems to be the main force in the West. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the holocaust thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves), but most people don't think of such things. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion and vanity and celebrity culture. Celebristianity is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth killing poor whites), homo bacchanalia every year, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (poo-c meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)

We can see the power of hedonics in US elections as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why Kennedy beat Nixon. Though Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Goldwater. Nixon wasn't fun, but Humphrey wasn't life of the party either. And McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Carter was more fun than Ford. Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Carter and Mondale. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than colorless Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Dole. Dubya was more fun than square Gore and droopy Kerry. Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Romney. And Trump was more fun than Hillary. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)

No comments:

Post a Comment