A Waste of Time

Bucknell electrical engineering professor Meriel Huggard canceled her regularly-scheduled lecture for March 29, requiring her students to attend and write about a campus summit on diversity instead.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/bucknell-professor-cancels-class-requires-students-to-attend-diversity-summit-instead/

Capitalism did not require good “calculators” (i.e. people good with calculation), it brought forth good calculators; but it also brought forth monopolism: the total monopolisation of all Capital in the hands of a few billionaires with US citizenship who rule the whole world through nuclear blackmail and whose dominion only is in that sense “international” or “global/ist.” With the market disappearing, monopolism does not demand good calculators the same way capitalism demanded them. Not facing any serious (and soon not any) military or economic competition from other nations and their possibly well-educated, well-trained citizens, the standard of education is now more and more lowered. The generation born after the end of the Cold War and raised during the age of US monoimperialism is already less educated, less cultivated and less able to read long and complex texts than previous generations. Monopolism, which has more resemblance to Byzantine feudalism than to the capitalist market that gave birth to it, demands more ideological drivel and claptrap instead.

   By contrast, John Calvin and François Rabelais, despite all their differences, both had in common that they strongly disliked any kind of time-devouring brainwashing and of people wasting their time. Calvinist sermons might have been long, but Calvinism did not insist on pilgrimages, on spiritual retreats and on making dozens of breaks during work in order to pray. Furthermore, these infamously long sermons often required language discipline to properly understand and follow, and were hence less infantilising than what is common for “Catholodoxy” and their often illiterate adherents. The craftsmen and the merchants of the free cities, already used to autonomous control of each other in their guilds, picked Calvin and other Reformers as their useful spokesmen, and were willing to listen to his sermons once a week when they could rationally and diligently work the other six days.

   So, even apart of the ugly feminist and “anti”racist nature of such “diversity” programs: it is generally noteworthy how much time employees and students are already enforced to waste in the “spiritual retreats” of the new high-tech dark ages to come, that is, in “manager retreats”, “in-service education”, “summit events”, “human resource classes”, “diversity training”, and so on. That employees and students are forced not to work but forced to waste their time in such seminaries and/or forced to simply memorise endlessly long lists of academic jargon and drivel to then mindlessly recite during a multiple choice test, is only more evidence that the monopolist future is near, and that the capitalist market that gave birth to monopolism is about to end. (One should consider as well that increasingly many people who do have “jobs” are not actually performing any socially necessary labor, but are, rather, busy being rats and snoops and state employees, indoctrinating and surveilling.)

Posted in From Capitalism to Today's Monopolism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Just Lift, Brah!” – The Red Pill as an Extension of the American Dream

There are no individual solutions to structural problems. Only Chinese circus artists can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and the vaunted American dream, the ideal by which upward social mobility is available to any American, that life will get better, that progress and material prosperity are inevitable if only one obeys the rules and works hard, has been replaced by a hard and bitter truth. The American dream, we now know, is a lie. It has always been a lie. “It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” (George Carlin) The truth is, that we will all be sacrificed.

   The monopolized Capital in the hands of a few American billionaires is now about to destroy the last pitiful remainders of non-American mini-capital: in Russia first, then in 20-30 years or so in China (maybe the last “conventional” war of human history) and meanwhile that of the so-called “middle class”. The only “market” then left in monopolism is the market for the 99% of people who do not own any capital, only have their labor to offer and hence have to compete with increasingly many people for increasingly low wages, work increasingly long hours and pay increasingly high rent. More competition, more poverty, more overwork, more unemployment, white men as a personalized scapegoat for an assortment of woes and good old religion as the opium of an impoverished people: Deus akbar!

   Likewise, the Red Pill is based on the same ideological premises; it is the sexual extension of the “American dream.” Founded upon the same rootless individualism, it offers a concordant philosophy. The demand to work hard equals the request to lift hard, and the think-positive mantra is complemented by the phantom of an alpha male mentality. Furthermore, both ideologemes are based on the just-world-fallacy: the idea that the wretched of the earth only have themselves to blame. If everyone can “make it” simply by being diligent and by obeying the rules, those who don’t make it, must be morally ambiguous if not outright reprehensible. The poor man is despised as much as the lonely man. There probably is something wrong with him, he’s lazy, pervert, wicked – don’t let him get to close to the kids!

   By contrast, French author Michel Houellebecq showed more insight and offered a more compelling -at least more engaging– explanation of modern solitude. Writing in his first novel, entitled Extension du domaine de la lutte, literally meaning “extension of the area of struggle”, he described the effects of capitalism (the first “area of struggle”) being extended with a liberal free market sexuality (the second “area of struggle”): “Just like unrestrained economic liberty, and for similar reasons, sexual liberty produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally free economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally free sexual system some have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude.”

    The Frenchman was right. There is no “culturally Marxist” but a “capitalist” sexual market, in which an unattractive underclass is exiled while the privileged initiates are drained by corruption, sloth and excess. There are no individual solutions to structural problems, neither to economic nor to sexual ones.

Posted in From Capitalism to Today's Monopolism, The Trash Can of Ideology, The Woman Question | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nightmares and Violence

Tonight I woke up from two nightmares. First, I dreamed about being in one of these “Scream“-movies together with some of the guys I went to school with. Later, I found myself alone in a foggy doorway that was only dimly illuminated by a bluish light. Being aware of how cheesy horror movies work I knew that it was my time to die now. So I took heart and followed the light until I eventually found myself in a kitchen. There were pots and pans. I turned around and saw two monster girls, young women, one of whom had a skeleton face that reminded me of Kuniyoshi’s famous ukiyo-e. I knew that they would kill me now and I was very afraid. I didn’t want to be afraid. It might have been my destiny to be killed now, all according to script, but I didn’t want to be afraid, didn’t want to go out without a fight. So I looked around the kitchen and picked a pan and a pot with chili con carne in it and banged them together a couple of times until the sound was loudly echoing through the room. Having pumped myself up thoroughly and managed to get angry rather than scared, I eventually screamed and leaped towards the monster girls, reached out with the pan to hit the nearest one across her fucking skeleton face, and anticipating the satisfying sound her crushing bones would make, I finally woke up. After having woken up, I was kinda proud of myself, because I managed to overcome my fear even within a dream. Accepting one’s destiny doesn’t have to be a passive act – if it’s your time to go down, you might as well go down with a bang and not with a whimper. At least die on your feet.

    Later, I had another dream. I dreamed that I was in a college class that took place in a space shuttle. The space shuttle had a classroom attached to it and every week we would fly into space, with the professor steering the space shuttle, and his female assistant holding the actual class. Obviously, the class mostly consisted of young college students, but there also were two adult men in the room: me and some punk guy with dreadlocks. Not the dirty, unwashed kind of “punk guy”, but rather the type you might run into in all these social and education circles; the type who works in an orphanage and with drug-addicted teenagers – as a street worker, social worker, community organizer. That type. Now, whenever the teacher asked a question she always picked two of the girls she seemed to be particularly fond of, whereas whenever I raised my hand and wanted to state my opinion, she ignored me. After a while I became infuriated over being ignored and concluded that only brutal violence can help me now. Standing up and angrily walking towards the teacher, I was blocked by some cuck: skinny, glasses, prematurely balding, pale and sickish; somehow managing to look both older and younger than he probably was. I pushed him aside and glanced over to the other adult guy in the room: the punk smiled and gave me a nod. Apparently, he, too, came to the conclusion that some good old fashioned violence was necessary now. We just wanted to attack when our space shuttle suddenly began to shake tremendously, and out of the front window we could look down over a crowded street scene. Somehow, the people walking on the street were both humans and yet not human. For a while, I was puzzled over that but then came to realize that the puzzles of life are no reason not to violently do what is to be done. Then I woke up.

    This dream especially reminded me of how I so often feel these days: as if talking is futile. Everything that needs to be said has already been said. And written. It has been shouted from the rooftops and whispered in the alleys, printed in books or published on blogs. Maybe there is indeed no hope anymore and the best one can hope for is being a thorn in the flesh of the system. Marcel Proust and Thomas Bernhard, both of whom well-known for their melodic and musical structure of their entwined and (in)famously long sentences, used to be my favorite writers. Now I don’t read them anymore. Language just bores me. When I was a pupil at school I sometimes daydreamed about becoming a famous author. But who would even publish a dissident voice in the current year? Truly independent publishers are disappearing, a tweet from one fat feminist is enough to cancel every contract, a monopolized capital is in control of a monopolized press and a monopolized education system: “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.” – Nietzsche 

   When we all agree to not use violence anymore, but then the ruling class abolishes free speech and people get fired for their views, some of them will eventually go back to violence again. Admittedly, I, too, do not believe in freedom of speech anymore. We need more power, not more freedom of speech. Or, rather, what is power anyway, where does power begin? Power begins with being able to make people shut up and listen for two hours. People go to school and to college, shut up for several hours every day and then listen. This is power. Sadly, upon returning home they are so exhausted that they can’t be bothered to read more than a single paragraph and post some cartoon frogs. They need a tl;dr for everything. (By the way, my personal theory is that one of the reasons of antisemitism lies in the fact that the Jewish religion enforces reading discipline from a very early age on. While most Christian, especially Catholic, children were only required to memorize short prayers and were often artificially kept stupid, Jewish children were required to develop a reading discipline that prevented Jews from becoming as infantile and stupid as Catholic peasants still are.)

    This is why I, admittedly, find it refreshing at times to read old-fashioned fascists. And I mean the historical fascists who called themselves fascist, authors such as Giovanni Gentile. There is just such an unapologetic acceptance of violence and hence simply no need for some Scholastic claptrap about how to differ 50 shades of just and unjust wars, and how this verse of scripture actually means the opposite so you’re still allowed to crush your enemies. In contrast, figures such as Arai Sekizen, head of the Soto Zen sect and supporter of Japanese Nationalism before World War II had to twist words in order to create comments such as, “Japan is a lover of peace, so even if she goes into war, it is always a war of peace.” A war of peace! Or consider Lenin saying, “It is much more likely that even in small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and for that reason the only program of international Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war, though violence is, of course, alien to our ideals.”

   If “pure” fascism, “urfascism”, as one might call it in reference to Umberto Eco, the kind of fascism that came into existence mainly in France and Italy and that was not yet mixed with Catholicism, is pure hatred, than a lot of what you find on the left is pure cynicism: the idea that violence must only be used temporarily to reach some Utopian stage at which further violence will never be necessary anymore. Bert Brecht, early supporter of Stalin, embodied this attitude best when he wrote in his poem To Those Born Later: “Hatred of oppression still distorts the features, / Anger at injustice still makes voices raised and ugly. / Oh we, who wished to lay for the foundations for peace and friendliness, / Could never be friendly ourselves. / And in the future when no longer / Do human beings still treat themselves as animals, / Look back on us with indulgence.” Ah. We could not be friendly ourselves, so please be indulgent when you study the GULAG system. Make of that what you will, but at least on an emotional level I can see why people would be more drawn to a “””fascist””” attitude that simply states, “Violence is the gold standard, the reserve that guarantees order. In actuality, it is better than a gold standard, because violence has universal value. Violence transcends the quirks of philosophy, religion, technology and culture. People say that music is a universal language, but a punch in the face hurts the same no matter what language you speak or what kind of music you prefer.”

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“What Does Such a Race Want with High Wages?” – On Marxism and Open Borders

My grandfather always dreamed of going to America. Due to life and its weird oddities, he somehow ended up in a Spanish concentration camp instead. My father, too, always dreamed of going to America, aspiring to join a Big Band when the age of Big Bands was already long over. Instead, he somehow ended up as a classical musician in a European orchestra. What we hope for politically is not always what he hope for personally. Consider, for instance, how many bitter and despairing people believe that only more terrorism could make people finally wake up, while simultaneously hoping that they and their loved ones will remain spared from the onslaught of racist white people or radical Muslims. Likewise, whether political notions are true (or false) is independent from how they relate to our personal lives. My parents came as refugees to the Western world shortly after the floodgates of immigration were opened at the request of a number of big businessmen such as Francis Bouygues in France, under Konrad Adenauer in Germany and due to laws introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy in the United States.

   Capital either goes to misery (“outsourcing”) or imports misery (“Refugees welcome!”) in order to take advantage of docile and cheap labor, to drive down wages and to drive up rents. Lower wages, higher rents: this is the simple materialist reason why Capital wants free trade and open borders; this is why it has long used immigration to move different ethnic groups throughout the world like pawns on a chessboard. Indians were sent to Fiji to cut sugar canes while Chinese people were sent to Canada, to South Africa and the US to work on railways. The Wirtschaftswunder of 1950s Germany, i.e. the era of economic growth after World War II, was first “tackled” by importing Turkish workers, and the US Immigration Act of 1965 not only laid the foundation for the ethnic replacement of European Americans but, ironically, also to the destruction of the African-American working class. (African-Americans had been developing a relatively stable working class for some years and a delicate middle class with some economic success as small business owners when the foundation for their destruction was laid during the Civil Rights Era.) Clearly, “No Nations! No Borders!” is just as much a corporate slogan as it is the slogan of a spoiled and pampered, highly financed ANTIFA youth, rioting to emphasize their demands for less “racism”, more immigration and transsexual characters in video games. 

    However, Marx and Engels, during their day and age, understood why the English ruling class of the 19th century was so eager to imports hundreds of thousands of Irish workers. Friedrich Engels, writing on Irish immigration in 1845, first quoted historian Thomas Carlyle to explain: “The Irishman is there to undertake all work that can be done by mere strength of hand and back — for wages that will purchase him potatoes. He needs only salt for condiment, he lodges to his mind in any pig-hutch or dog-hutch (…). The Saxon-man, if he cannot work on these terms, finds no work.” Engels agreed and continued himself, “These Irishmen who migrate for fourpence to England, on the deck of a steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? (…) The majority of the families who live in cellars are almost everywhere of Irish origin. In short, the Irish have discovered the minimum of the necessities of life, and are now making the English workers acquainted with it. (…) With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him.” http://archive.is/0lgQy Today, it is Mexican or Syrian workers who make white workers “acquainted with the minimum of the necessities of life.” This, not some nonsense about “conscious capitalism” is the reason why big business is so eager to fight for “diversity”, “inclusion” and immigration.

    One of the saddest “red pills” to swallow is that the ruling class is not a race or an occult group, trying to achieve a metaphysical or ideological goal of some sorts (like a world without “pure” races), but is simply opposed to the nation state and borders because they want cheap labor. They want mass immigration in order to drive down wages, drive up rents and make strikes impossible. Conservative Ann Coulter realized it, “Nouvelle Droite” philosopher Alain de Benoist realized it (“Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.”), self-described National-Socialist Kerry Bolton realized it, and even “democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders(!) realized it before he cucked out: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers proposal. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” http://archive.is/1XQlI

    Unsurprisingly, even the 19th century knew both a misguided religious as well as a racial opposition to the immigration of Irish people (who were neither considered to be white nor, given that they were traditionally Catholic, Christians). Even back then many Christians used the Bible as a crystal ball and gobbled up booklets and pamphlets full of several self-assured, populist explanations of how the Irish were agents of the Romish antichrist, their immigration fulfilling the details of obscure biblical prophecies. Likewise, fascism and racism today have actually become more acceptable in Christian circles than thorough anti-Capitalism; you can rather talk about how the evil Jews want to kill the Aryan man as a revenge for the Reformation than using terms such as “ruling class”, “capital” and “low-wage workers.” Same with anti-Americanism: describing the USA as a new Babylon and Satanic is more acceptable and widespread than simply noticing the process of the monopolization of capital and US “monoimperialism.”

   But obscure Christian prophecies and racism are only two of the features the misguided opposition of today and the misguided opposition of the past have in common. A further similarity is their hostility towards technology: the Luddites, for instance, were a group of English textile workers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. Of course, the ruling class of 19th century England (the same ruling class who imported these Irishmen to make things even worse for workers) defended machinery and crushed the Luddites most brutally; just like the ruling class of today destroys you most brutally if you speak out against open borders. If alt-right et al. had realized that racism and anti-technological sentiment weren’t the proper responses for 19th century Luddites, and aren’t the proper responses today, they might not have been so disappointed by their “God Emperor” Trump, and might not go down the path of lunatic torch marches and esoteric antisemitism today. 

    Furthermore, while people are less equal than they say, they are still more equal than they think. It is perfectly reasonable wanting to avoid “a scenario where I’m electorally outnumbered by or have to interact with significant numbers of people from groups which disproportionately display hostility toward my group“, but even the most racist white person has to admit that Asians, Indians and Mexicans are obviously at least smart enough to produce, say, the cars that were once produced in the US and hence created a strong and prosper working and middle class. After all, a single genius here and there does not yet make a prosperous country – look at the middle and the working class, not just on the number of Nobel prize laureates! Additionally, Indian engineers on H-1B visas (easy to get rid off) who work for lower wages and less security are just as useful as low-wages workers; not only economically but also politically. Remember how Hillary Clinton won the Democrat’s nomination as presidential candidate due to the almost religious support of American “people of color”, specifically black people, who fervently supported the most hawkish and imperialist of all, and loudly applauded when she rhetorically asked them if racism were to end if she would break up the big banks. (Who cares about imperialism and war as long as these “intersectional feminists of color” don’t have to bear the sight of a white guy with dreadlocks, amirite!)

   With the alt-right not realizing that there is neither Jew nor Gentile when it comes to Capital, but that they are all one in the Dollar, and leftists -due to the carrot and stick policies of the ruling class- having degenerated into a bunch of thugs, rats, state employees and crypto-liberals, dark and difficult times lie ahead of us.

“No Nations! No Borders!” is just as much a corporate slogan as it is the slogan of spoiled and pampered ANTIFA youngsters who never have to worry about predatory multinational corporations shutting them down or firing them

Posted in From Capitalism to Today's Monopolism, The Trash Can of Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Q: Why Is Homosexuality Being Promoted so Heavily in the Colonies of American Capital?

A: Because homosexuality has lost all of its once revolutionary potential, and shall never regain any of its once revolutionary potential. Today, homosexuality is no longer about men enjoying their freedom outside the restraints of conservatism, but essentially about an imitation of an “ideal” heterosexual marriage – with one “manly” and sexually dominant Chad being the grumpy provider, and one effeminate bitchy faggot being the “wife” who is supposed to decorate everything in rainbow colors, raise a couple of adopted kids and then complain about the lack of real tops these days. This way, a cleansed and neutered homosexuality can not only be used to justify and “pinkwash” imperialist aggression against the enemies of US mega-capital (such as Russia and Iran), but it is also not a threat to the “livestockification” of humanity any longer.

    If you can’t beat them, make them join; and make every young man see that even the gays don’t have anything other to offer than bitchy shrews and catty whores, than tumblr cunts with little children. After all, witnessing gay men living and loving outside the patterns of religious fertility cults, matriarchal marriages and corporate slavery could give young men the idea that there are alternatives for them, either. This always was the main reason why this insignificant minority used to be hated so much. Today, however, and with carrot and stick, is homosexuality simply turned into yet another area of life that is characterized by political correctness, feminists neuroses, and tumblristic hysteria preferably about how this or that sexual fetish or preference is all “problematic.” If gay or straight, if left or right: there’s nothing other than feminist cuckservatives who want real men to men up so they can raise strong and independent daughters. “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.” – Nietzsche 

    So no, pedophilia will not be “the next step.” Quite the opposite. Western society’s pedo hysteria is just as bad, if not even worse, than Western society’s rape hysteria. Just as conservative shotgun dads are often struck by feminist rape hysteria, alt-right tough guys, too, indulge in feminist rape (at least when it comes to non-white men) and in feminist pedo hysteria. Feminists and alt-right tough guys both believe that soon pedophilia will be legalized, although we’re actually witnessing the very opposite trend and instead see a tendency to even criminalize young couples who “lay and learned what each other’s bodies were for” (Neutral Milk Hotel), or young girls who send nudes to their young boyfriends. Furthermore, men are not only shamed when they walk across a playground, but also permanently pushed into being attracted to used up sluts, to man up and marry washed up single mothers, with the fake news media even increasingly pushing the idea that “pregnant women are so hot, AREN’T THEY!?”

    The roles within a marriage might have changed, but there still is pressure on men to leave their “man cave”, “man up” and marry. And the question is if there are 3rd ways for men, beyond the feminist-or-tradcuck (or a blend of the two) dichotomy.  Here is one of the things I actually like about Jack Donovan: he always stated that gay men trying to imitate hetero marriage is futile. His ideal basically seems to be a kind of gay gang living in the woods and LARPing as Pagans. Sure, it’s easy to make fun of that, but it’s still far better and well-wrought than being friends with Hillary Clinton and trying to imitate the worst gender roles of modern hetero couples in their rainbow-colored corporation bubble.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous, The Trash Can of Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Living Are Few but the Dead Are Many: Remembering All Victims of the US Empire

“Not from weeping nor from grieving will anyone obtain peace of mind; on the contrary, his pain will be the greater and his body will suffer. He will make himself sick and pale, yet the dead are not saved by his lamentation. He who seeks peace should draw out the arrow of lamentation, and complaint, and grief. He who has drawn out the arrow and has become composed will obtain peace of mind; he who has overcome all sorrow will become free from sorrow, and be blessed.” – Paul Caurus retelling the story of Kisa Gotami

“Philosophy may safely be left with intellectual minds. Zen wants to act, and the most effective act, once the mind is made up, is to go on without looking backward. In this respect, Zen is indeed the religion of the samurai warrior.” – Daisetsu Suzuki 

    ~

So let us draw out the arrow of lamentation and act. Russia, China, Iran, Philippines, Hungary, Southern-Secessionist-Types … we can either form the biggest, weirdest coalition of all human history, or be destroyed one by one by the monopolized US mega-capital. We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

Posted in Miscellaneous, World Domination of the US Empire | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Q: Why Is Fascism so Attractive to a Significant Portion of (Ex-)Libertarians?

A: Because a fascist is just a scared libertarian, and antisemitism is the anti-capitalism of fools. When a libertarian is getting scared and worried about the future, when it dawns on him that the monopolized US mega-capital has not even any interest in preserving the white middle-class, he turns into a fascist and starts believing that he just has to give (((them))) “free helicopter rides” in order to solve all economical issues. After all, Capital also financed Hitler to stop socialism and destroy the workers’ movement; only when it turned out that he didn’t merely want to destroy socialism was he brought down again. Furthermore, fascism does not only allow to work around the stresses of existence in a post-capitalist (now monopolist) economy, but also to continually fetishize inequality and poverty. A poverty that is usually promoted as “natural” for other people only (not for those who LARP as Crusaders and the like on twitter), but  sometimes even for oneself: specifically, when economic angst results in an attempt to overcome said angst by preventively choosing asceticism, by psychologically pretending to voluntarily and demonstratively practise self-denial and abandonment.

    This is also the reason why Catholicism is increasingly popular in alt-right circles. After all, no Protestant denomination has ever fetishized inequality and poverty as much as Catholicism. The Roman church has made a cult out of impervious hierarchies, even the angels in heaven, they remind us, are all at their “proper” place and always content with their lot, no matter how low they are on said hierarchy – and as in heaven, so on earth. Or else. From the early 18th century on, arguably the dawn of modernity, this boogeyman that brought you things such as modern medicine and the middle-class (both disappearing now, because hardly anyone can afford proper healthcare any longer and the middle-class is falling apart), Baroque Catholicism was characterized by being the religion of the aristocracy and the peasants – but not the religion of the citizens in the free cities. Historically, Protestantism was the religion of the citizens and unsurprisingly, it then became a less infantilising religion, insisting on literacy, fervid studying and a reading discipline necessary to read long and complex texts. This was something different than the Catholic approach of “feel much, think little” – only giving superstition and prayers to memorize to the peasants. Self-described reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila described this phenomenon perfectly accurate when he noted that “the Catholic Mass can be celebrated in palaces and in huts, but not in the houses of the middle-class citizens.”

    Libertarianism, fascism and Catholicism: a match made in heaven, or hell, hellbent on bringing about the “livestockification” of people, of impoverished masses whose only purpose in life is to produce as much offspring as biologically possible.

Posted in From Capitalism to Today's Monopolism, Religions and Theology, The Trash Can of Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mad but for Music: on Bernstein’s Tchaikovsky

“You see, my dear friend, I am made up of contradictions, and I have reached a very mature age without resting upon anything positive, without having calmed my restless spirit either by religion or philosophy. Undoubtedly I should have gone mad but for music. Music is indeed the most beautiful of all Heaven’s gifts to humanity wandering in the darkness. Alone it calms, enlightens, and stills our souls. It is not the straw to which the drowning man clings; but a true friend, refuge, and comforter, for whose sake life is worth living.” – Pyotr Tchaikovsky in a letter to Nadezhda von Meck, 1877

     I never succeeded to make a kind of surrogate religion out of art, and I was never even willing to see art as the last “spiritual” refuge of Western man.  Arguably, art, the sublime, the nebulous, the consuming, remains sacred in a world that increasingly despises the sacred. When the heroic and the transcendental are but memories, when religious institutions fill up with feminists, bureaucrats and social engineers, when nobody believes there is a sky beyond the ceiling, then there seems no other escape from the prison of a “restless spirit” than art.

    Nevertheless, or partly because of it, I do love Tchaikovsky. I always found that he is a terribly underrated composer, and that Bernstein gives us a Tchaikovsky for people who really do like Tchaikovsky. You probably wouldn’t approve of Bernstein’s interpretations of his music, if you believe that Tchaikovsky is an “exhibitionist of feelings” (Alfred Einstein) whose music occasionally “stinks” (Hanslick), whose desperation sounds like “schlager music” (Adorno), and whose homosexual Slavic sentimentalism, which makes him the favorite composer of the “intellectual middle class” (Einstein again), requires a tyrannical martinet of a conductor, in order to whip that whiny effeminacy back into shape.

    It is noteworthy that much of the popular critique of Tchaikovsky isn’t so much (or simply) about his music but about him violating conservative norms. Music isn’t supposed to “stink”, it is not supposed to sweat and only then is an “exhibitionism of feelings”, an artistic processing of neuroses and one’s own psychopathology permitted, when it is possible to philosophically elevate them (like with Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony that is then quickly associated with “fate knocking at the door”), if it is possible to link it to religion (as is the case with Bruckner’s Catholicism) or to “chaste” neuroses (as is the case with highly neurotic, superstitious Jew turned Catholic Gustav Mahler). It is therefore not surprising that a) many critics of Tchaikovsky only accept those interpretations that “thin out” his music (like a strong Russian liquor being watered down) or whip it into shape with a high tempo and the musical equivalent of an austere military regiment, since this, too, conforms to the conservative idea of how to deal with such queer characters; and b) that some of the most prominent advocates of Tchaikovsky were not part of the frothy “middle class” but, quite the opposite, performers who were dedicated to defend the modern arts, and whose eccentricities and performances caused smaller and bigger scandal, as well.

   To cite an example, Glenn Gould, whose physicality and whose (in)famous non legato caused occasional indignation, once said about Tchaikovsky, “I consider Tchaikovsky to be a great composer, even though it is a trend today to dislike him. I on the other hand believe that he was one of the great symphonists after Beethoven and I love his music.” Leonard Bernstein, who was notorious for jumping up and down while conducting (Christa Ludwig, once asked about the differences between Leonard Bernstein and Herbert von Karajan, replied that “Bernstein sweats, Karajan doesn’t.”), and whose collaborations with the worlds of musical and jazz caused suspicions, loved it, either. Unsurprisingly, the popular critique of Tchaikovsky was also directed at Bernstein’s interpretations of his music – they were accused of being too loud, too stinky, sweaty and too sentimental; just not chaste enough. Especially Bernstein’s Pathétique with its slow tempo and its savoring of feelings is a good example of this. Whereas Mravinksy needed only around 10 minutes for the elegiac last movement, Bernstein needs almost 18, and this is gorgeous, this is liberating and this is a congenial apology of this ingenious composer and his disarming music that has a tendency to overcome all defense mechanisms such as intellectualization or sublimation and therefore can be “dangerous” in the best way possible.

    In that regard, the famous quote from Tchaikovsky’s latter to the Lady von Meck could actually give us a false impression of his music. Music might have calmed the great Russian’s “restless spirit” in a way no philosophy or religion could – but one of the reasons why Tchaikovsky is less popular than some more acclaimed composers exactly lies in the fact that there are hardly any attempts to make a “surrogate religion” or a philosophy out of his music. You will find neither Verdi’s nationalism nor Wagnerian “philosophy” in his music, but a subjectivity in which “a program is not only unnecessary, it is impossible.” (Letter to von Meck, 1878)

Posted in The Fine Arts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Technology Is Not the Enemy

A while ago I read a couple of reviews about some documentary that depicted the everyday work within a nuclear power plant. The journalists praised the female director of this documentary for humorously portraying the male workers and their pathetic, albeit a little quirky, masculinity. The nuclear power plant itself was basically depicted as a dangerous plaything that only existed because men, as Nietzsche said, like danger and play. Unsurprisingly, the director praised German chancellor Angela Merkel for her plan to shut down every single German nuclear reactor by 2022.

  Unfortunately, it cannot be said that alt-right et al. have a more rational view regarding technology and technological progress; with the future looking bleak, they romanticize the past instead. (It sometimes seems as if the only group left having a positive view on technology are a bunch of tumblr trannies with cyberpunk-fueled fantasies about implants and about having their “female” brain transplanted into the shell of a young Scarlett Johansson.) Sure, not all of them go so far as to regularly quote Ted Kaczynski, but despite not being able to agree about which period of the past they should romanticize the most (Sparta? The Dark Ages? Nazi Germany?), there seems to be an at least emotional consensus about technological progress having enabled women to go crazy. Without technology, their reasoning goes, females had to drop their stronk womyn act and would instead rely on stronk men again to protect them from spiders and bears.

   Not even mentioning the more libertarian concerns about technology and surveillance, one cannot help but think of Tibullus’ (55 BCE – 19 BCE) famous Tenth Elegy when being confronted with this ideological pessimism in regards to the alleged consequences of technology: “Quis fuit, horrendos primus qui protulit enses? / Quam ferus et vere ferreus ille fuit! / Tum caedes hominum generi, tum proelia nata, / tum brevior dirae mortis aperta via est.” (“Who was he, who first forged the fearful sword? How iron-willed and truly made of iron he was! Then slaughter was created, war was born to men, then a quicker road was opened to dreaded death.”) Of course, the great poet quickly lets this Roman soldier preparing for battle realize that we should not blame the inventor or the invention, and that “slaughter” was not just born with the sword. And what Tibullus was aware of, Marx and Engels recognized, either: “Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world.”

  If technological progress occurs during the advancement of a struggling class, “its consequences are in most cases good”, e.g. they result in a higher life expectancy, better health care, clear drinking water, less toothache and being able to call your father who would probably already be dead from something heart related already if it weren’t for modern medicine. However, if technological progress occurs during the downfall of this class and only comes into the hands of a ruling class that doesn’t have to face any resistance, its consequences will be mostly bad, e.g. result in surveillance, abolition of cash in favor of electronic money, drone strike terrorism, workers being replaced by machines or essentially being turned into parts of a machine (the most soul-destroying probably being the jackhammer), fatherhood tests being made illegal, mass-immigration in countries that already suffer from unemployment being promoted, and so on and so forth. (If you hope for sexbots to eventually replace women you’ll be disappointed, because robots that could replace women would soon be outlawed, while male  workers will continue to be replaced by machinery.)

   Oscar Wilde put it best in his essay about The Soul of Man under Socialism: “All work of that kind (=that slaves had done before) should be done by a machine.” Leon Trotsky agreed: “The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of life’s goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or ‘decent’ boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective ‘utopian.’” Nothing else is what Lenin summarized by saying that “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country.” The Soviet power (Soviet meaning council) represented freedom, but without electrification, back then synonym for an unbelievable ease of working conditions, freedom was illusory.

  Whatever you otherwise dislike about Marxism, Marxism is not a primarily “moral” enterprise, it’s not a secularized Christianity. No priest ever said that Christianity is impossible without the “electrification of the whole country” – but Communism without technology is. So don’t let us make the mistake Albius Tibullus warned us about more than 2000 years ago. It’s not the sword nor the inventor of the sword that is evil; it simply depends on in whose hand said sword is. If you are oppressed by a monopolized ruling class working against your very best interests, it’s not the technology that is the problem but the fact that this one ruling class still holds all the power in its hands.

Posted in Science and Philosophy, The Trash Can of Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond the Orwellian Confusion: What Do “Left” and “Right” Really Mean?

The frustrating Orwellian confusion in which words appear to take on the opposite of their ordinary meaning is, unfortunately, an all too common experience among those who live and die on the wrong side of an unjust regime. Likewise, attempting to lift the rhetorical fog in which language itself becomes a painful and fraught minefield of confusion, has always been one of the proudest achievements of all those struggling against the forces of darkness. For instance, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), the most enigmatic and controversial, as well as probably the single most widely read and influential thinker of the Early Enlightenment, was best known for his seminal work the “Dictionnaire Historique et Critique”, the historical and critical dictionary. This encyclopedia of critical knowledge was characterized by the rigor and skeptical approach of its author who delighted in pointing out the contradictions, half-truths and ideological errors of ruling class-approved newspeak.

  Sadly, the use of words as euphemisms, inoffensive synonyms, anodyne bureaucratic jargon and a political correctness that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meanings of words has not come out of fashion. Quite the opposite! Just consider the vast amount of people who can only describe those ruling over them as the “elites”; a term implying excellence, skillfulness and cognitive, artistic or moral superiority. Likewise, there is a remarkable number of people who consider themselves to be “right-wingers” because they – unlike those who identify as “left-wingers” – oppose the Islamization of increasing parts of the Western world. Clearly, “left” and “right”, too, are terms used in ways to socially manipulate the masses.

   So ask yourself: was Barack Obama, patron saint of Ukrainian fascists, Saudi-Arabian sheikhs and radical Islamic cutthroats in Syria a “leftist”? Was he at least to the left of Bush II. for letting transsexual mercenaries use the toilet of their choice between two torture sessions down at Guantanamo Bay? Or was Bill Clinton a leftist for murdering thousands of Serbs in order to let Bosnian Muslims and fascist Croatian Catholics separate from the central Yugoslavian government? Has the Vatican become a leftist institution after not even being patient enough to let biology solve the problem that was Ratzinger, in order to let this Argentinian Jesuit immediately begin kissing the feet of immigrants at Lampedusa and brown-nosing the rich and powerful who clearly favor open borders over religious distinctions? Talking about the rich and powerful: is billionaire Howard Schultz, chairman and CEO of the Starbucks Corporation a leftist for having announced to hire Syrian refugees to protest US President Trump? Or is it evidence of a leftist zeitgeist that a healthy, happy sexuality might not be made impossible by Puritans or Catholics (who at least allowed sex for procreation within marriage; historical Puritanism even being far less infantilising than Catholicism), but is now hindered and inhibited by feminism and the irrationality, the hatred, the rape hysteria, the neuroses, the feelings of guilt, the (self-)punishment and the perversions feminism stands (and always stood) for? Finally, are violent gangs and thugs who destroy property, set cars ablaze and beat up people for being opposed to the mass-immigration of low-wage workers leftists; are they the revolutionary guard of Angela Merkel whose open border policy now finally made Germany ze Führer of the “free world”?

    The answer to all of these questions is obviously NO. Those who support the Re-Islamization of the Middle East and the Islamization of Europe, are hostile to humor and to sexuality and who support the aggressive rainbow imperialism of the Western bloc are never left- but right-wingers, and merely the tools, the useful idiots of the same monopolised US mega-capital that wants to destroy the nation state and its borders in order to import cheap labor, drive down wages, drive up rents, and make strikes outright impossible. (Likewise, those American “people of color” who were almost religiously opposed to Donald Trump, even when he ran on a relatively anti-war platform at least based on peace with Russia, Syria and an opposition to the further influx of the low-wage workers the ruling class just can’t get enough of, aren’t “oppressed” leftists and freedom fighters, but spoiled and pampered, cynical assholes who are seemingly fine with millions of murdered Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis, Serbs, Russians and so on, as long as they don’t have to bear the sight of some white girl in a geisha costume. [Or who define “racism” as “When the white women I have a fetish for don’t want to fuck me.”] I used to sympathize with American “people of color”, racism and all that, but seeing the result of the last US election, especially from black people with their breathtaking support for Hillary Clinton, even Bernie Sanders was a white phenomenon, admittedly made me feel bitter at times, disillusioned or even betrayed.) A perversion of terms and the low standard of education in monopolism (that can comfortably infantilise its citizens again since there is no serious military and economic threat from a rivaling country and its possibly well-educated citizens anymore) made the majority of people associate “left-wing” with the goals of the US mega-capital that now seems to stand in the proud tradition of the martyrs of Enlightenment and revolution. By contrast, “right-wing” (which in some countries and contexts is an “accusation” as terrifying as the accusation of having been called a “heretic” in the Dark Ages or a “Jew-lover” in Nazi Germany) is now being associated with being opposed to the forces of darkness.

   Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left. The “citizen” who also has a constitutional status and is therefore not the same as the “bourgeoisie” who is defined by his social status, was also part of the famous third estate, which did not only consist out of poor peasants. Only the romanticising of poverty and the demonisation of mini-capital, the same demonisation that fueled antisemitism, is to blame for official history having forgotten that citizens and not only impoverished peasants were part of the third estate. Unsurprisingly, the fake leftists of today, with Mullahs, Popes (clergy) and billionaire heirs (aristocracy) on their side, are ordered to attack the “white middle-class man” and the small business owner, because just as the monopolised US mega-capital wants to destroy the remainders of non-American mini-capital in Russia and in 20, 30 years or so in China, they want to destroy the last remainders of the so-called middle-class. 

    These modern thugs (no matter if you know them as ANTIFA or #blacklivesmatter or whatever name they go by in your country – we all know them when we see them; a thug by any other name would still stink as much) are essentially the equivalent of Hitler’s SA during the Weimar Republic; and just like Hitler gave fascist lyrics to communist tunes, picked the color red instead of the color brown, did not forget to mention “workers” and “socialism”, and used antisemitism as a faux-surrogate for socialism, as the socialism of the dunces, ANTIFA, as the modern SA, also makes superficial references to “leftism” and also pretends to be opposed to capitalism; but they are a fake opposition just like the NSDAP back then was a fake opposition. They are fascists painted in red. (Maybe Hitler’s faux-“socialism” is one of the reasons why he is so much more popular today than Mussolini,  who seems to be largely forgotten and just seen as an eccentric comic book villain.)

  PS – In how far it is even worth trying to salvage the term “left” from the claws of warmongering American feminists, and what could be seen as a necessary correction of the scientific method of Marx, what as a rejection of Marxism, is a whole other question, of course. Leninism, for instance, can obviously be interpreted as a reaction to Marx’s historical optimism – but could the same be said about leaving behind an anthropological optimism in regards to women? I guess that’s up to debate!

Posted in The Trash Can of Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment