Chapter 4: Your Ideas About Modern Society Are Wrong
In the last chapter I discussed (and provided sources for) examples of history being used to guilt-trip, and it kind of bled into discussions of modern European society. I only did so because most of the people who have criticized American history and culture (in my experience, anyway) are in fact Europeans, and the last bit of chapter 3 was to illustrate how incorrect this was, and illustrate how progressive writers and politicos in Europe will disparage their own nations and cultures similarly to those in America. In this chapter, I will attack how the assumptions progressives have towards MODERN society are also wrong, and how some people profit from propagating these views
In the last chapter I discussed (and provided sources for) examples of history being used to guilt-trip, and it kind of bled into discussions of modern European society. I only did so because most of the people who have criticized American history and culture (in my experience, anyway) are in fact Europeans, and the last bit of chapter 3 was to illustrate how incorrect this was, and illustrate how progressive writers and politicos in Europe will disparage their own nations and cultures similarly to those in America. In this chapter, I will attack how the assumptions progressives have towards MODERN society are also wrong, and how some people profit from propagating these views
As in the last chapter (and I apologize for its length and density), I will be predominantly analyzing my own nation and commenting on other nations (usually Europe, as it is the other large factor driving global society leftward) if I feel like I am capable of doing so. As a note, I will not be discussing sexuality to a great degree in this chapter, that will be the next chapter.
I hate to reiterate something I've already stated, but I also feel I have to due to how utterly wrong this concept is: the United States is not, in any way, shape, or form, a culture that is "right wing". As I have already stated, the US has a fair amount of traditional socialism being applied to its governmental workings, albeit less than other Western nations. Where the USA excels is in propagating the thought of the "New Left"-is it a coincidence that modern feminism, the gay rights movement, political correctness and multiculturalism, historical revisionism and white guilt, critical theory, sanitized anthropology, and essentially every other shibboleth of the modern left either was born in the US, or is championed by it as repeatedly stated above and will be stated below? Frankly, if there is any reason to be ashamed of America, I'd go with this-and this is one of the ideas that I share with the neo-reactionaries (albeit not quite to the extent they do).
"Just because American intellectuals champion these attitudes doesn't mean the common people conform to these concepts at all!" you might be saying. Perhaps you haven't noticed the almost yearly hate crime hysterias that arise in this country, which always result in a rash of hysterical "mea culpas" from self-pitying whites, and then dissipate down without apology once they end up being completely overblown, as they often do? Or to put it another way, how often do other countries have these "we're sorry for slavery" passion plays, which, to reiterate, the US should bear far less guilt for?
"But left-wing political thought really has no power in the US". Wrong. Being left-wing in the USA is literally the safest political status you can possibly be. How many public figures have been pilloried in public for statements that can be construed as slightly racist or right-wing (in contrast, a leftist identity politician like Al Sharpton can slander, incite, and lie again, and again, and again, and again, and again and apparently not lose any credibility)? Meanwhile, it's not exactly difficult to make money from being a member of the new left-or maybe Gawker, Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, Jezebel, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are hurting for cash, why don't you ask them? Considering how all of those institutions have successfully gotten people fired and/or blacklisted, I think it's fair to say they have at least some political power in addition to their enormous bank accounts. For that matter, why don't you ask the very left leaning American corporation Google about the enormous amount of power it has when it lobbies other nations to accept gay marriage, cited above (I won't get into the incredible hypocrisy of leftists cheerleading Google throwing its weight around because it's for a "good cause", another reason I have left progressivism). Are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and "My brother's keeper" not left wing? When the US Army repeatedly makes public statements about how "diversity is our greatest strength" and how they desperately need more women in the ranks, are those not left wing? Or to put it simply, go into a public forum in the USA, praise Che Guevara and Thomas Jefferson in succession, compare the results you get (here's a hint-it's the exact opposite of the results you should get.
This is one of the major reasons I've abandoned the progressive cause-this nonsensical idea they have of being the "underdog", of "speaking truth to power", of being oppressed by evil fascist Amerikkka. Nothing could be more incorrect. I'll illustrate this simply-Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project, which purports to be a lone candle in the darkness reaching out to the oppressed gay youth, has the support of such downtrodden entities as…Microsoft, Apple, and the US Federal Government. Something isn't right here. (I'll have a more detailed discussion of sexuality both hetero and homo in the next chapters, but rest assured in a just world, Jack Donovan would have the syndicated gay column in newspapers across the country, and nobody would ever have heard of the pompous, catty little bantam Mr. Savage)
For that matter, the gay community has massive pride parades and festivals sanctioned by the government and sponsored by corporations that grind cities around the world to a screeching halt every year. Is this oppression?
Time Magazine, America's Periodical of Note, had its May 2014 cover story basically state that transsexuals are "the new frontier", and it is an inexorable drive to the glorious future. Clearly, being an open transperson has a diminishing threat level (at least from the public, from themselves is another story). In fact, it's such a small threat that the FBI states there's only about 30 anti-LGBT homicides per year. 30/14,000 or so total homicides per year in the USA=less than .03%.
"But black teenage boys are being hunted down every day in Amerikkka!!" That is correct…in a manner of speaking. Yes, black youths (I am using youth in the way journalists do, referring to anybody between the ages of 0 and 40) are the largest percentage of homicide victims in the USA. What is always ignored is the fact that they are also the largest percentage of homicide perpetrators as well. This citation goes to an archive, as the racial category has been taken off the BJS website for mysterious reasons. In other words, the typical killers of black men are…other black men. Are you surprised by this information? I don't see why you would be, it's not like the "powers that be" try to paint white men as crazed gunmen and serial killers (fun fact: 20% of serial killers in the US are black), right? As a side note, this goes as far as registering criminals as "white" when it is likely they themselves would not consider themselves so.
I suppose most people are also not aware that white people are actually the most victimized in interracial attacks (whether or not these violent attacks are registered as "hate crimes" is another story, linked is the infamous "Beat Whitey Night" that was not considered a hate crime by the Des Moines branch of the SPLC. And that's not getting into the "Hispanic Effect" mentioned above, which the Bureau of Justice Statistics has been documented doing, so the rate of "white murders" is probably lower then it appears to be). There are also several notable cases of Asians and Hispanics being victimized by black people, but of course these are not publicized. No, let's scour the country every year for a handful of incidents in which white men end up shooting black men, and let's push the narrative no matter what evidence arises that subverts it. I could go on about more things that progressives believe about race that are wrong, but this article has more to it than just racial issues. I'll just point out that black people are not, in fact, devoid of self-esteem (they have a surfeit of it) and that black legislators actually demanded that the government punish crack cocaine use harsher than powder cocaine. As I once said to an exchange student from Norway, "once you realize that America is 15% black, America will begin to make sense to you" (in terms of the crime rate, the collapsing educational system, etc, etc).
More to the point, as shown above, major periodicals and the government itself push this viewpoint over my own. Doesn't that, to some extent, prove that my viewpoint is more controversial and oppressed than the progressive one? Speaking truth to power! And I didn't even get to mention the blatant race-baiting in elections, and the enormous amount of money that go into the endless educational initiatives designed to "Close the achievement gap". Rest assured, with all the money being funneled into the black hole, somebody profits from it, they profit from keeping minorities stupid and embittered. I have a vague idea of the useless, fraudulent administrators and superintendents that profit from it, but sadly, I can't identify any specific names. My apologies.
"Look at how evil America treats the poor downtrodden illegal immigrants, who are better than native-born Americans in every single possible way!" I used to believe this too, actually. Then I started to see evidence that stated otherwise. First off, as I've stated, the United States already provides 5% of Mexico's GDP via remittances. This despite the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, Mexico really isn't a poor country, and they are certainly not starving. Then there's the lie of how immigrants are inherently more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans, which can be easily debunked. Somehow going hand in hand with the "entrepreneur" myth is the idea that we need illegal immigrants to do the dirty jobs "We just won't do" (which seems a bit incongruous with the entrepreneur idea, unless every single manual laborer is also an entrepreneur). This is also demonstrably wrong-Observe the LA times reporting that more and more native-born Americans are peddling stuff out of carts on the street due to being unable to find regular employment-is being a street vendor one of those glamorous high paying jobs that all greedy American savages want? As somebody who worked as a street musician throughout my college tenure, and moved furniture in the summers, I can tell you standing outside in the sun for hours a day neither feels good or pays well.
Seems to put a dent in the stereotype of "lazy slothful Americans not wanting to do work", doesn't it? And how did those jobs get done back in the days when America was 90% white? Perhaps the lawns went unmowed, the garbage piled up, and the streets were devoid of vendors for centuries until illegal immigration began. Why yes, I am a bit angry at smug SWPLs who piously cry over the corpses of black criminals and extend their arms to foreigners that don't like us, all the while smugly mocking and disparaging their own, poorer, countrymen because, ew, they probably listen to country music and go to church.
(As a side note, I have to raise a bit of an issue here-one of the biggest defenses people have for illegal immigrants is that they do manual labor and thankless grunt work. It seems like a pretty weak defense-what I mean is, imagine if somebody said "We have to get all the Jews out of America", the Hebrews would be able to defend their contributions to America by pointing to people like George Gershwin, Jonas Salk, and Albert Einstein. In contrast, the main thing people have to defend illegal immigrants is thankless menial jobs that got done without them in years past and will likely be mechanized in the next few decades. Am I the only one who sees the weakness of this argument?)
To put it simply, I feel that statistics show that illegal immigrants cost more money than they generate.
So seeing as the economic arguments are wrong, I will discuss the other arguments: the historical/guilt arguments. No, Mr. Biden, they were not "here before us". The tribes that inhabited what is today the USA are not the same as those that inhabited what is today Mexico. Aztlan never existed. As stated above, the northern territories of Mexico pre-1848 were sparsely populated and barely under control of the Mexican government, and the majority of people resided in the present day territory, so the "border crossed us" nonsense is not defensible. It certainly does not apply to the Central American countries that provide illegal immigrants either.
Even more tendentious than these are the arguments of "you complain about illegal immigrants but you have no right to complain because Indians". IE: "America is a nation built of conquest so therefore you have no right whatsoever to complain about uninvited irredentists. Just bend over and take it". This argument is also regularly thrown at Canadians, Australians, and Kiwis.
As stated above, America is hardly the only nation to be built from one group of people taking things from other people. Do all the other nations built off of conquest not have a right to their territory either? Mexico itself is counted in this category (when the land was taken from them in 1848, that was apparently a good thing according to this logic). And let's not get into the fact that the American tribes as they exist today A) Were not the first people here, conquering the land from other tribes (ie: those tribes crossing the Bering land bridge did not all come in one shot, rather it was a gradual migration over thousands of years, and tribes fought each other all the while), and B) certainly didn't just lay down and accept the vibrant diversity (ie: white colonists) given to them. Should they have?
This argument is hypocritical (almost as hypocritical as Mexico's southern border being militarized to stop the illegal immigrants from Central America): undoubtedly, the people who are in favor of amnesty would say that white people coming into Indian lands was a bad thing. But now, Mexicans coming into white lands is…a good thing? What kind of sense does that make? As stated previously, this cannot be considered a claim of "taking back our land". If the progressive establishment feels that white American culture is inferior to the culture of Mesoamerica, and thus Americans should accept the infinitely superior illegals for their own good (and I suspect they do considering the use of the word "vibrant"), then they should do us all a favor and just admit it.
(As a side note, spare me talk of how they are "the descendants of the Aztecs"/closer to the tribes/etc. A quick glance at the politicians and celebrities of Latin America will show that they're pretty white looking, and by pretty I mean extremely)
(As another side note, the fact that tens of thousands of non-white people risk life and limb each year to get to the USA, either via crossing the desert or as "boat people", seems to put into question the concept of America being this blood-drinking fascist abyss of racism and white supremacy. "Wh-why are you people going there?! Don't you know about all that white privilege and white supremacy that goes on there?!!?! Wait, stop! ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE!!!!")
"But white privilege!" Ah, yes. First of all, as I have already demonstrated, white people are the most victimized in interracial crime (one strike upon privilege). More damning, if America is indeed ruled by awful oppressive rich WASPs (which is the typical definition of "white people" in an American context), then…why do they allow minorities to be wealthier and better educated then they are? No, really-East Asians, East Indians, and Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, wealthier, better educated, and arrested less than non-Jewish white Americans. Do these three minorities just repel the oppression beams that white America uses on the other groups?
To clarify, I am not denying that racism exists, or profiling exists. Obviously they do, my only objection is the idea that these things can only exist because of "white privilege", and that any statistics that prove there might be reasons as to the existence of these things (beyond big bad whitey creating them for no reason) are run away from as fast as possible. I provided stereotypes of my own nation earlier, and showed how they are incorrect via actual evidence. If white privilege can be proven, if it can be statistically shown that white people are, in fact, the lowest achieving/most criminal dregs of society (which is always the claim given, easily debunked), provide evidence for it.
(By the way, the profiling thing is also thrown into a bit of doubt when you realize that police departments around the country actually hide evidence of black criminality, as well as by the phenomenon of non-white people being referred to as white to artificially inflate white crime rates, as shown above. But I guess the concept of "some police departments profile and others do the complete opposite thing" is too difficult for progressives to understand. In addition to THESE, recent evidence suggests that, contrary to what the media suggests to us, black people are actually killed by police officers almost 20% less than you would expect)
A recent phenomenon that demonstrates the lack of "white privilege" better than anything else is the "flight from white" that has been seen in recent years-this is likely a concept that needs introducing. In government records, up until about the 1960s, Hispanic people were considered their own race separate from white people. This classification doesn't exist anymore-in the 1940s, a political organization called LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) successfully lobbied the government to be classified as white. They also advocated assimilation into mainstream American society. Evidently, at this point in time, there was indeed some privilege in being seen as white, the majority population. This is illustrated by the fact that non-white people wanted to be seen as white, and successfully did so.
Compare to today where they make it clear that they wish to be seen as separate from white people on the census, and indeed try to link themselves to past discrimination suffered by African-Americans, on very flimsy evidence, it should be stated.
Another example: Denizens of the Middle East and North Africa, historically a very small minority in America (even today comprising only about 2% of the total population), were generally considered to be white in the past. But today, they lobby to have a "MENA" category on the census. Again, they wish to be seen as separate from white people, just as Latinos do.
The question to be asked is, if being white is such a privilege, and if it opens so many doors for you in society, then wouldn't these minority groups want to be seen as white?
"But-but-the Republicans!" Oh my, how I love talking about how "right wing" the Republican Party is not. Word of advice: "invade the world, invite the world" isn't "conservative" (remind me what the word "conserve" means, and then ask how trillions of dollars in pointless military adventures is conserving anything). Know what else isn't conservative? Supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, albeit for different reasons (the Cheap Labor Lobby, naturally). A short list of these amnesty loving GOP politicians: Grover Norquist, Ronald Reagan, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Bush Junior, John Boehner, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Kevin McCarthy, Marco Rubio. These are not exactly junior congressmen I've listed.
Beyond that, there's the prostrating they do towards black people: observe how Rich Lowry of the National Review immediately ran to proclaim his piety to Al Sharpton after Trayvon Martin was shot-to put it metaphorically, Lowry clung to Sharpton's leg like a woman in a Frank Frazetta painting. Observe this video of Karl Rove rapping. Another video, of a Fox News anchor handling the infamous black debate team winners with the biggest kid gloves imaginable. I think it's fair to say that the National Review and Fox News speak for the GOP. And for all the pro-America rhetoric they spout, their actions speak their louder than their words. If they cared so much about the United States and the people of the United States, they wouldn't be inviting in millions of illegal immigrants, nor would they be literally selling America out to the highest (foreign) bidder ( Taibbi, Matt, Griftopia, Chapter 5. "The Outsourced Highway" 2013), nor would they be sending thousands of American men and women to die in pointless wars (side note: there are few things I hate more than mincing words. When you send thousands of men with rifles and big machines that make things go "boom" somewhere, that's a war. Stop calling it a "conflict"). I'll leave you with the fact that Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, an ACTUAL right wing politician, has bluntly stated in interviews that he has no idea of what the Republican Party's principles are supposed to be.
A quick note: Shut up about COINTELPRO, seriously. Yes, the government did counter-intelligence against various 60s leftist groups. But isn't it amazing how everything those 60s identity politic groups wanted, they basically achieved, as has already been discussed and will continue to be discussed? Ooh, big bad COINTELPRO sure did a great job on them, right? It's almost as if the "Generation of '68"has a sneaking suspicion that the faults of the modern world are to a fair extent their doing, and this "right-wing" nonsense is about assuaging their own guilt.
While we're on the topic of "stopping", let's stop talking about the "partisanship", the "right wing extremists causing 'honk honk beep beep government gridlock'" (to borrow a phrase from Mike and the Robots). A better term would be, in the words of Professor Andrew Bacevich of Boston University, "tacit consensus". Sure they squabble, over issues like gay marriage which is an issue that, I hate to say, really doesn't matter at all (as gay marriage is quickly becoming legalized in every state, including reliably Republican states, this issue still won't affect more than the ~5% of the population that is homosexual). But when it comes to issues that affect 100% of the American people, the issues that actually do matter (things like wars, the budget, illegal immigration, the militarization of police, the war on drugs, the fact that American wages have stagnated for the last 40 years, governmental surveillance, expansion of the prison system, the national debt, crime increasing despite the fact that the police are becoming more brutal, and the myriad racial conflicts that are bubbling under the surface of the most diverse, most guilt-laden nation on the planet), they are 100% in lockstep.
"But why don't you vote Democrat then if all of those issues are a concern to you?" Excuse me while I laugh at the idea of the Democrats supporting any sort of traditional socialism ie: economic protectionism, labor unions, etc (it legitimately took me 5 minutes to write that last sentence, I kept trying but my fingers involuntarily typed strings of profanities bulwarked by "lol").
In all seriousness, the donkeys haven't done that since the 1970s. But the New Left, all of the stuff I've discussed for the past 26 pages? They are 100% behind that, and so are the Elephants. And here's the kicker: the New Left's doctrines also allow the corporations to get involved as well! Some of the biggest pushers of illegal immigration amnesty are fast food corporations, and, y'know, corporations in general (Why yes, FWD.us IS run by Mark Zuckerberg, and that guy is a real defender of the proletariat). Don't ask me to explain how the left that claims to be anti-corporate and sticking up for the little guy can do something that so blatantly benefits the corporations. Yes, Virginia, illegal immigrants are the corporation's best defense against unionization-if you don't have documentation, you're not making a union.
Up until the 1960s, roughly 40% of America's workforce was unionized. After wave after wave of illegal immigration (and governmental deregulation), it's down to less than 10%. Meanwhile, despite this blatant corporatism, both parties still promote white guilt, minoritarianism (seeking ever smaller "oppressed" groups to champion and use as the guilthammer, rather than the Bentham-esque "the greatest good for the greatest number" that progressives of the past championed), and all the other New Left idiocy that is undoubtedly left-wing, and the corporations are doing it too. Is it wrong of me to think that modern liberalism is essentially just pro-corporate, left-wing authoritarianism that seeks out increasingly smaller "oppressed minorities" to promote and feel good about, while also allowing people to make money off of "working for" these aforementioned minorities? It's an intellectual Bread and Circuses. For that matter, so is the phenomenon of "being aware" of third world poverty while poverty exists in your own first world nation. Liking things on Facebook doesn't help anybody, guys.
(As a side note, maybe that's why so many social justice types feel the need to use so much profanity in their writing. It provides them with the illusion that they're delightfully coarse rebels with a sense of righteous indignation, rather than just a slovenly class of elites)
Remember when Dubya claimed that we needed to go to war in Iraq because we had to "make it safe for the moms and dads" in that nation? We had to save the poor oppressed women from burqas and blah blah bleeding heart nonsense. The point I'm trying to make is that an actual right wing nation invades another for something like the "White Man's Burden" (yes, I know that the White Man's Burden has been interpreted in a left wing context, but that's a topic for another day). Doesn't the fact that these blatant left-wing causes were bandied about for invading, after the WMDs ended up being nonexistent, prove that A) The US is at least somewhat left wing, and B) There really isn't much of a difference between the two parties?
So let's stop blaming "THE RED STATES" for the weakening of American Labor and the rise of the corporation as political entity. It was a bipartisan job. Perhaps the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman was right when he stated that it is impossible to have both open borders and a welfare state.
On this note, let's stop the nonsense about "why do the rednecks vote against their interests?" I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats are not, in any way, for their interests, both in their policies and in the sneering condescension they don't bother hiding when talking to the townies. Both parties were for NAFTA, and globalization, but the Republicans at least try to pretend they're for small businesses, for the Heartland, for all of that feel-good nonsense. It seems pretty clear to me why Joe Jerkoff would vote for them. And frankly, it's not exactly a secret that the Republicans are just as much in favor of "electing a new people" as the Democrats (just check a few pages back), so that might explain why we've started to see the white working class turn away from politics altogether.
Or, y'know, we can just continue blaming THE REDNECKS for everything bad that has ever happened in human history. Hey, it worked for Harper Lee, it'll keep working for decades more. (For those of you not aware of what I speak, allow me to sum it up: To Kill A Mockingbird is implausible not because it portrays racism, but because it portrays a family that is about as literally "white trash" as you can possibly be having a ridiculous amount of power and influence, and thus absolving the saintly progressive upper-class white people, who are incidentally the book's biggest fans to this day, of any guilt. If you really want to read books to try and understand the South, try Faulkner or O'Connor...or perhaps Wellman if you want something slightly more light-hearted)
And herein lies the interesting factor: I agree with the modern leftists on about…50% of the issues-I support socialized medicine and public schools, I want the police to be less brutal, I want an end to imperialism (and the defense contractors that make billions from it), and I want less corporate involvement in our lives. Where we differ is A)Their belief in a multicultural kumbaya fantasy that is staggeringly incorrect for anybody remotely versed in history or anthropology, and B) The fact that they are more than willing to support the police state and corporatism-as long as they adhere to new left dogma. It has to be one or the other, guys.
In conclusion, let's look at who the American progressive has on their side: the US Federal Government, the media (there exist as many examples as there are stars in the night sky, but a few here , here, here, here, here), groups like the ACLU and the SPLC (the latter a multi-million dollar "nonprofit" that can be demonstrated to be wrong on several occasions), higher education, a fair number of corporations, and a sizable part of the population, not the least of which are the wealthiest counties in the nation.
In comparison, let's look at who supports somebody like myself: a much smaller part of the population. I'll just be here speaking truth to the power.
And so now that I've talked at length about the USA, let's look at some other lands:
American liberal Meccas-Basically take everything I discussed above, and change the names of organizations and demographics around, there you go. As discussed in previous pages, European crime rates are more or less increasing, their education systems are declining, and the new Left has indeed sunk its hooks into Europa somewhat deeper than it has in the US. To their credit, they seem to have realized this faster than us Yanks (yet another argument in favor of national homogeneity, thousands of disparate tribes, as there are in the US, are not going to move quickly). Of course, this has lead to some bad things, namely European nations doing things that would probably be construed as racist by their American sycophants-banishing Roma to "scum villages" on the outskirts of town is not a very nice thing. However, white flight is still occurring rapidly, the police are hiding evidence of crime in general, some of which includes minority crime, nonsensical hate crime hysteria arises there too and despite all this, prison populations are increasing, and prison populations are highly slanted towards minorities, which leads to them becoming radicalized in prison. While all this is going on, the police are indeed becoming more militarized and the government spies on them-in short, everything that is wrong with the US, is wrong with Europe, admittedly to a lesser degree (Canada is also starting to go down this same path, but they're a ways off. The legal doctrine of "hate facts" is not a good sign, though. From my knowledge, Canada can be lumped together with the other Anglosphere countries, as starting to go down the New Left path, but there might be hope for them yet. We shall see in the years to come.
I have already spoken of Latin America, and you can use Africa and the Middle East in European contexts in almost the exact same way Latin America can be used in US contexts. Briefly, let's look at East Asia. It seems likely indeed that the next century will be theirs. And it seems like they haven't bitten the multicultural bullet yet, although that doesn't stop the powers that be from trying to pull them into the multikult morass. While they are far from perfect (between China's environmental train wreck and Japan's ridiculous self-neutering, among other problems in other countries), those problems are probably easier to deal with then the West's cultural suicide.
So, after reading all of that, I don't think I ever explicitly stated why I dislike multiculturalism: it's a nice-sounding ideal to be sure, but it has this awful little tendency to shred all cultures of the world into this meaningless, lowest-common denominator nonsense, defined by hollow consumerism and pointless sexual intercourse. It doesn't help that it strangled American high culture in its infancy (Personally, I feel that the high point of American cultural output was from 1920-1970, when much of the worthwhile literary and artistic output I described in Chapter 3 was created. Let me put it this way: in the 20s, Duchamp referred to Eilshemius as a "genuine American master [painter]", I don't think anybody has claimed that title since). Why does it inherently make everything into this beige nothingness? Well, when you have to sell to every demographic, you have to kind of produce bland, LCD garbage. As I mentioned previously, multiculturalism largely started in the US, but why, exactly, did everybody else adapt it rather than just leaving this failed policy within the American borders? Of all the things to take from the US, why McDonalds and other flotsam, rather than Jack London, Ezra Pound, and George Bellows? That, I will not claim to have an answer to.
But now let's leave the economic aspects of the New Left behind, and look at that other wonderful cultural export from the US to the world...which will be continued in Chapter 5.
This article was originally posted on The Barbaric Gentleman
Larsen Halleck
Larsen Halleck is a physical culturist, martial artist, musician, writer, and (barely) a Youtuber and cartoonist- a man of many talents and moderate wages. He blogs about a multitude of subjects at The Barbaric Gentleman where he offers a free fitness PDF to subscribers. His writing and/or videos can also be found on Return Of Kings and New Media Central.
Blog Youtube
Twitter Gab
I hate to reiterate something I've already stated, but I also feel I have to due to how utterly wrong this concept is: the United States is not, in any way, shape, or form, a culture that is "right wing". As I have already stated, the US has a fair amount of traditional socialism being applied to its governmental workings, albeit less than other Western nations. Where the USA excels is in propagating the thought of the "New Left"-is it a coincidence that modern feminism, the gay rights movement, political correctness and multiculturalism, historical revisionism and white guilt, critical theory, sanitized anthropology, and essentially every other shibboleth of the modern left either was born in the US, or is championed by it as repeatedly stated above and will be stated below? Frankly, if there is any reason to be ashamed of America, I'd go with this-and this is one of the ideas that I share with the neo-reactionaries (albeit not quite to the extent they do).
"Just because American intellectuals champion these attitudes doesn't mean the common people conform to these concepts at all!" you might be saying. Perhaps you haven't noticed the almost yearly hate crime hysterias that arise in this country, which always result in a rash of hysterical "mea culpas" from self-pitying whites, and then dissipate down without apology once they end up being completely overblown, as they often do? Or to put it another way, how often do other countries have these "we're sorry for slavery" passion plays, which, to reiterate, the US should bear far less guilt for?
"But left-wing political thought really has no power in the US". Wrong. Being left-wing in the USA is literally the safest political status you can possibly be. How many public figures have been pilloried in public for statements that can be construed as slightly racist or right-wing (in contrast, a leftist identity politician like Al Sharpton can slander, incite, and lie again, and again, and again, and again, and again and apparently not lose any credibility)? Meanwhile, it's not exactly difficult to make money from being a member of the new left-or maybe Gawker, Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, Jezebel, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are hurting for cash, why don't you ask them? Considering how all of those institutions have successfully gotten people fired and/or blacklisted, I think it's fair to say they have at least some political power in addition to their enormous bank accounts. For that matter, why don't you ask the very left leaning American corporation Google about the enormous amount of power it has when it lobbies other nations to accept gay marriage, cited above (I won't get into the incredible hypocrisy of leftists cheerleading Google throwing its weight around because it's for a "good cause", another reason I have left progressivism). Are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and "My brother's keeper" not left wing? When the US Army repeatedly makes public statements about how "diversity is our greatest strength" and how they desperately need more women in the ranks, are those not left wing? Or to put it simply, go into a public forum in the USA, praise Che Guevara and Thomas Jefferson in succession, compare the results you get (here's a hint-it's the exact opposite of the results you should get.
This is one of the major reasons I've abandoned the progressive cause-this nonsensical idea they have of being the "underdog", of "speaking truth to power", of being oppressed by evil fascist Amerikkka. Nothing could be more incorrect. I'll illustrate this simply-Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project, which purports to be a lone candle in the darkness reaching out to the oppressed gay youth, has the support of such downtrodden entities as…Microsoft, Apple, and the US Federal Government. Something isn't right here. (I'll have a more detailed discussion of sexuality both hetero and homo in the next chapters, but rest assured in a just world, Jack Donovan would have the syndicated gay column in newspapers across the country, and nobody would ever have heard of the pompous, catty little bantam Mr. Savage)
For that matter, the gay community has massive pride parades and festivals sanctioned by the government and sponsored by corporations that grind cities around the world to a screeching halt every year. Is this oppression?
Time Magazine, America's Periodical of Note, had its May 2014 cover story basically state that transsexuals are "the new frontier", and it is an inexorable drive to the glorious future. Clearly, being an open transperson has a diminishing threat level (at least from the public, from themselves is another story). In fact, it's such a small threat that the FBI states there's only about 30 anti-LGBT homicides per year. 30/14,000 or so total homicides per year in the USA=less than .03%.
"But black teenage boys are being hunted down every day in Amerikkka!!" That is correct…in a manner of speaking. Yes, black youths (I am using youth in the way journalists do, referring to anybody between the ages of 0 and 40) are the largest percentage of homicide victims in the USA. What is always ignored is the fact that they are also the largest percentage of homicide perpetrators as well. This citation goes to an archive, as the racial category has been taken off the BJS website for mysterious reasons. In other words, the typical killers of black men are…other black men. Are you surprised by this information? I don't see why you would be, it's not like the "powers that be" try to paint white men as crazed gunmen and serial killers (fun fact: 20% of serial killers in the US are black), right? As a side note, this goes as far as registering criminals as "white" when it is likely they themselves would not consider themselves so.
I suppose most people are also not aware that white people are actually the most victimized in interracial attacks (whether or not these violent attacks are registered as "hate crimes" is another story, linked is the infamous "Beat Whitey Night" that was not considered a hate crime by the Des Moines branch of the SPLC. And that's not getting into the "Hispanic Effect" mentioned above, which the Bureau of Justice Statistics has been documented doing, so the rate of "white murders" is probably lower then it appears to be). There are also several notable cases of Asians and Hispanics being victimized by black people, but of course these are not publicized. No, let's scour the country every year for a handful of incidents in which white men end up shooting black men, and let's push the narrative no matter what evidence arises that subverts it. I could go on about more things that progressives believe about race that are wrong, but this article has more to it than just racial issues. I'll just point out that black people are not, in fact, devoid of self-esteem (they have a surfeit of it) and that black legislators actually demanded that the government punish crack cocaine use harsher than powder cocaine. As I once said to an exchange student from Norway, "once you realize that America is 15% black, America will begin to make sense to you" (in terms of the crime rate, the collapsing educational system, etc, etc).
More to the point, as shown above, major periodicals and the government itself push this viewpoint over my own. Doesn't that, to some extent, prove that my viewpoint is more controversial and oppressed than the progressive one? Speaking truth to power! And I didn't even get to mention the blatant race-baiting in elections, and the enormous amount of money that go into the endless educational initiatives designed to "Close the achievement gap". Rest assured, with all the money being funneled into the black hole, somebody profits from it, they profit from keeping minorities stupid and embittered. I have a vague idea of the useless, fraudulent administrators and superintendents that profit from it, but sadly, I can't identify any specific names. My apologies.
"Look at how evil America treats the poor downtrodden illegal immigrants, who are better than native-born Americans in every single possible way!" I used to believe this too, actually. Then I started to see evidence that stated otherwise. First off, as I've stated, the United States already provides 5% of Mexico's GDP via remittances. This despite the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, Mexico really isn't a poor country, and they are certainly not starving. Then there's the lie of how immigrants are inherently more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans, which can be easily debunked. Somehow going hand in hand with the "entrepreneur" myth is the idea that we need illegal immigrants to do the dirty jobs "We just won't do" (which seems a bit incongruous with the entrepreneur idea, unless every single manual laborer is also an entrepreneur). This is also demonstrably wrong-Observe the LA times reporting that more and more native-born Americans are peddling stuff out of carts on the street due to being unable to find regular employment-is being a street vendor one of those glamorous high paying jobs that all greedy American savages want? As somebody who worked as a street musician throughout my college tenure, and moved furniture in the summers, I can tell you standing outside in the sun for hours a day neither feels good or pays well.
Seems to put a dent in the stereotype of "lazy slothful Americans not wanting to do work", doesn't it? And how did those jobs get done back in the days when America was 90% white? Perhaps the lawns went unmowed, the garbage piled up, and the streets were devoid of vendors for centuries until illegal immigration began. Why yes, I am a bit angry at smug SWPLs who piously cry over the corpses of black criminals and extend their arms to foreigners that don't like us, all the while smugly mocking and disparaging their own, poorer, countrymen because, ew, they probably listen to country music and go to church.
(As a side note, I have to raise a bit of an issue here-one of the biggest defenses people have for illegal immigrants is that they do manual labor and thankless grunt work. It seems like a pretty weak defense-what I mean is, imagine if somebody said "We have to get all the Jews out of America", the Hebrews would be able to defend their contributions to America by pointing to people like George Gershwin, Jonas Salk, and Albert Einstein. In contrast, the main thing people have to defend illegal immigrants is thankless menial jobs that got done without them in years past and will likely be mechanized in the next few decades. Am I the only one who sees the weakness of this argument?)
To put it simply, I feel that statistics show that illegal immigrants cost more money than they generate.
So seeing as the economic arguments are wrong, I will discuss the other arguments: the historical/guilt arguments. No, Mr. Biden, they were not "here before us". The tribes that inhabited what is today the USA are not the same as those that inhabited what is today Mexico. Aztlan never existed. As stated above, the northern territories of Mexico pre-1848 were sparsely populated and barely under control of the Mexican government, and the majority of people resided in the present day territory, so the "border crossed us" nonsense is not defensible. It certainly does not apply to the Central American countries that provide illegal immigrants either.
Even more tendentious than these are the arguments of "you complain about illegal immigrants but you have no right to complain because Indians". IE: "America is a nation built of conquest so therefore you have no right whatsoever to complain about uninvited irredentists. Just bend over and take it". This argument is also regularly thrown at Canadians, Australians, and Kiwis.
As stated above, America is hardly the only nation to be built from one group of people taking things from other people. Do all the other nations built off of conquest not have a right to their territory either? Mexico itself is counted in this category (when the land was taken from them in 1848, that was apparently a good thing according to this logic). And let's not get into the fact that the American tribes as they exist today A) Were not the first people here, conquering the land from other tribes (ie: those tribes crossing the Bering land bridge did not all come in one shot, rather it was a gradual migration over thousands of years, and tribes fought each other all the while), and B) certainly didn't just lay down and accept the vibrant diversity (ie: white colonists) given to them. Should they have?
This argument is hypocritical (almost as hypocritical as Mexico's southern border being militarized to stop the illegal immigrants from Central America): undoubtedly, the people who are in favor of amnesty would say that white people coming into Indian lands was a bad thing. But now, Mexicans coming into white lands is…a good thing? What kind of sense does that make? As stated previously, this cannot be considered a claim of "taking back our land". If the progressive establishment feels that white American culture is inferior to the culture of Mesoamerica, and thus Americans should accept the infinitely superior illegals for their own good (and I suspect they do considering the use of the word "vibrant"), then they should do us all a favor and just admit it.
(As a side note, spare me talk of how they are "the descendants of the Aztecs"/closer to the tribes/etc. A quick glance at the politicians and celebrities of Latin America will show that they're pretty white looking, and by pretty I mean extremely)
(As another side note, the fact that tens of thousands of non-white people risk life and limb each year to get to the USA, either via crossing the desert or as "boat people", seems to put into question the concept of America being this blood-drinking fascist abyss of racism and white supremacy. "Wh-why are you people going there?! Don't you know about all that white privilege and white supremacy that goes on there?!!?! Wait, stop! ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE!!!!")
"But white privilege!" Ah, yes. First of all, as I have already demonstrated, white people are the most victimized in interracial crime (one strike upon privilege). More damning, if America is indeed ruled by awful oppressive rich WASPs (which is the typical definition of "white people" in an American context), then…why do they allow minorities to be wealthier and better educated then they are? No, really-East Asians, East Indians, and Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, wealthier, better educated, and arrested less than non-Jewish white Americans. Do these three minorities just repel the oppression beams that white America uses on the other groups?
To clarify, I am not denying that racism exists, or profiling exists. Obviously they do, my only objection is the idea that these things can only exist because of "white privilege", and that any statistics that prove there might be reasons as to the existence of these things (beyond big bad whitey creating them for no reason) are run away from as fast as possible. I provided stereotypes of my own nation earlier, and showed how they are incorrect via actual evidence. If white privilege can be proven, if it can be statistically shown that white people are, in fact, the lowest achieving/most criminal dregs of society (which is always the claim given, easily debunked), provide evidence for it.
(By the way, the profiling thing is also thrown into a bit of doubt when you realize that police departments around the country actually hide evidence of black criminality, as well as by the phenomenon of non-white people being referred to as white to artificially inflate white crime rates, as shown above. But I guess the concept of "some police departments profile and others do the complete opposite thing" is too difficult for progressives to understand. In addition to THESE, recent evidence suggests that, contrary to what the media suggests to us, black people are actually killed by police officers almost 20% less than you would expect)
A recent phenomenon that demonstrates the lack of "white privilege" better than anything else is the "flight from white" that has been seen in recent years-this is likely a concept that needs introducing. In government records, up until about the 1960s, Hispanic people were considered their own race separate from white people. This classification doesn't exist anymore-in the 1940s, a political organization called LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) successfully lobbied the government to be classified as white. They also advocated assimilation into mainstream American society. Evidently, at this point in time, there was indeed some privilege in being seen as white, the majority population. This is illustrated by the fact that non-white people wanted to be seen as white, and successfully did so.
Compare to today where they make it clear that they wish to be seen as separate from white people on the census, and indeed try to link themselves to past discrimination suffered by African-Americans, on very flimsy evidence, it should be stated.
Another example: Denizens of the Middle East and North Africa, historically a very small minority in America (even today comprising only about 2% of the total population), were generally considered to be white in the past. But today, they lobby to have a "MENA" category on the census. Again, they wish to be seen as separate from white people, just as Latinos do.
The question to be asked is, if being white is such a privilege, and if it opens so many doors for you in society, then wouldn't these minority groups want to be seen as white?
"But-but-the Republicans!" Oh my, how I love talking about how "right wing" the Republican Party is not. Word of advice: "invade the world, invite the world" isn't "conservative" (remind me what the word "conserve" means, and then ask how trillions of dollars in pointless military adventures is conserving anything). Know what else isn't conservative? Supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, albeit for different reasons (the Cheap Labor Lobby, naturally). A short list of these amnesty loving GOP politicians: Grover Norquist, Ronald Reagan, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Bush Junior, John Boehner, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Kevin McCarthy, Marco Rubio. These are not exactly junior congressmen I've listed.
Beyond that, there's the prostrating they do towards black people: observe how Rich Lowry of the National Review immediately ran to proclaim his piety to Al Sharpton after Trayvon Martin was shot-to put it metaphorically, Lowry clung to Sharpton's leg like a woman in a Frank Frazetta painting. Observe this video of Karl Rove rapping. Another video, of a Fox News anchor handling the infamous black debate team winners with the biggest kid gloves imaginable. I think it's fair to say that the National Review and Fox News speak for the GOP. And for all the pro-America rhetoric they spout, their actions speak their louder than their words. If they cared so much about the United States and the people of the United States, they wouldn't be inviting in millions of illegal immigrants, nor would they be literally selling America out to the highest (foreign) bidder ( Taibbi, Matt, Griftopia, Chapter 5. "The Outsourced Highway" 2013), nor would they be sending thousands of American men and women to die in pointless wars (side note: there are few things I hate more than mincing words. When you send thousands of men with rifles and big machines that make things go "boom" somewhere, that's a war. Stop calling it a "conflict"). I'll leave you with the fact that Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, an ACTUAL right wing politician, has bluntly stated in interviews that he has no idea of what the Republican Party's principles are supposed to be.
A quick note: Shut up about COINTELPRO, seriously. Yes, the government did counter-intelligence against various 60s leftist groups. But isn't it amazing how everything those 60s identity politic groups wanted, they basically achieved, as has already been discussed and will continue to be discussed? Ooh, big bad COINTELPRO sure did a great job on them, right? It's almost as if the "Generation of '68"has a sneaking suspicion that the faults of the modern world are to a fair extent their doing, and this "right-wing" nonsense is about assuaging their own guilt.
While we're on the topic of "stopping", let's stop talking about the "partisanship", the "right wing extremists causing 'honk honk beep beep government gridlock'" (to borrow a phrase from Mike and the Robots). A better term would be, in the words of Professor Andrew Bacevich of Boston University, "tacit consensus". Sure they squabble, over issues like gay marriage which is an issue that, I hate to say, really doesn't matter at all (as gay marriage is quickly becoming legalized in every state, including reliably Republican states, this issue still won't affect more than the ~5% of the population that is homosexual). But when it comes to issues that affect 100% of the American people, the issues that actually do matter (things like wars, the budget, illegal immigration, the militarization of police, the war on drugs, the fact that American wages have stagnated for the last 40 years, governmental surveillance, expansion of the prison system, the national debt, crime increasing despite the fact that the police are becoming more brutal, and the myriad racial conflicts that are bubbling under the surface of the most diverse, most guilt-laden nation on the planet), they are 100% in lockstep.
"But why don't you vote Democrat then if all of those issues are a concern to you?" Excuse me while I laugh at the idea of the Democrats supporting any sort of traditional socialism ie: economic protectionism, labor unions, etc (it legitimately took me 5 minutes to write that last sentence, I kept trying but my fingers involuntarily typed strings of profanities bulwarked by "lol").
In all seriousness, the donkeys haven't done that since the 1970s. But the New Left, all of the stuff I've discussed for the past 26 pages? They are 100% behind that, and so are the Elephants. And here's the kicker: the New Left's doctrines also allow the corporations to get involved as well! Some of the biggest pushers of illegal immigration amnesty are fast food corporations, and, y'know, corporations in general (Why yes, FWD.us IS run by Mark Zuckerberg, and that guy is a real defender of the proletariat). Don't ask me to explain how the left that claims to be anti-corporate and sticking up for the little guy can do something that so blatantly benefits the corporations. Yes, Virginia, illegal immigrants are the corporation's best defense against unionization-if you don't have documentation, you're not making a union.
Up until the 1960s, roughly 40% of America's workforce was unionized. After wave after wave of illegal immigration (and governmental deregulation), it's down to less than 10%. Meanwhile, despite this blatant corporatism, both parties still promote white guilt, minoritarianism (seeking ever smaller "oppressed" groups to champion and use as the guilthammer, rather than the Bentham-esque "the greatest good for the greatest number" that progressives of the past championed), and all the other New Left idiocy that is undoubtedly left-wing, and the corporations are doing it too. Is it wrong of me to think that modern liberalism is essentially just pro-corporate, left-wing authoritarianism that seeks out increasingly smaller "oppressed minorities" to promote and feel good about, while also allowing people to make money off of "working for" these aforementioned minorities? It's an intellectual Bread and Circuses. For that matter, so is the phenomenon of "being aware" of third world poverty while poverty exists in your own first world nation. Liking things on Facebook doesn't help anybody, guys.
(As a side note, maybe that's why so many social justice types feel the need to use so much profanity in their writing. It provides them with the illusion that they're delightfully coarse rebels with a sense of righteous indignation, rather than just a slovenly class of elites)
Remember when Dubya claimed that we needed to go to war in Iraq because we had to "make it safe for the moms and dads" in that nation? We had to save the poor oppressed women from burqas and blah blah bleeding heart nonsense. The point I'm trying to make is that an actual right wing nation invades another for something like the "White Man's Burden" (yes, I know that the White Man's Burden has been interpreted in a left wing context, but that's a topic for another day). Doesn't the fact that these blatant left-wing causes were bandied about for invading, after the WMDs ended up being nonexistent, prove that A) The US is at least somewhat left wing, and B) There really isn't much of a difference between the two parties?
So let's stop blaming "THE RED STATES" for the weakening of American Labor and the rise of the corporation as political entity. It was a bipartisan job. Perhaps the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman was right when he stated that it is impossible to have both open borders and a welfare state.
On this note, let's stop the nonsense about "why do the rednecks vote against their interests?" I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats are not, in any way, for their interests, both in their policies and in the sneering condescension they don't bother hiding when talking to the townies. Both parties were for NAFTA, and globalization, but the Republicans at least try to pretend they're for small businesses, for the Heartland, for all of that feel-good nonsense. It seems pretty clear to me why Joe Jerkoff would vote for them. And frankly, it's not exactly a secret that the Republicans are just as much in favor of "electing a new people" as the Democrats (just check a few pages back), so that might explain why we've started to see the white working class turn away from politics altogether.
Or, y'know, we can just continue blaming THE REDNECKS for everything bad that has ever happened in human history. Hey, it worked for Harper Lee, it'll keep working for decades more. (For those of you not aware of what I speak, allow me to sum it up: To Kill A Mockingbird is implausible not because it portrays racism, but because it portrays a family that is about as literally "white trash" as you can possibly be having a ridiculous amount of power and influence, and thus absolving the saintly progressive upper-class white people, who are incidentally the book's biggest fans to this day, of any guilt. If you really want to read books to try and understand the South, try Faulkner or O'Connor...or perhaps Wellman if you want something slightly more light-hearted)
And herein lies the interesting factor: I agree with the modern leftists on about…50% of the issues-I support socialized medicine and public schools, I want the police to be less brutal, I want an end to imperialism (and the defense contractors that make billions from it), and I want less corporate involvement in our lives. Where we differ is A)Their belief in a multicultural kumbaya fantasy that is staggeringly incorrect for anybody remotely versed in history or anthropology, and B) The fact that they are more than willing to support the police state and corporatism-as long as they adhere to new left dogma. It has to be one or the other, guys.
In conclusion, let's look at who the American progressive has on their side: the US Federal Government, the media (there exist as many examples as there are stars in the night sky, but a few here , here, here, here, here), groups like the ACLU and the SPLC (the latter a multi-million dollar "nonprofit" that can be demonstrated to be wrong on several occasions), higher education, a fair number of corporations, and a sizable part of the population, not the least of which are the wealthiest counties in the nation.
In comparison, let's look at who supports somebody like myself: a much smaller part of the population. I'll just be here speaking truth to the power.
And so now that I've talked at length about the USA, let's look at some other lands:
American liberal Meccas-Basically take everything I discussed above, and change the names of organizations and demographics around, there you go. As discussed in previous pages, European crime rates are more or less increasing, their education systems are declining, and the new Left has indeed sunk its hooks into Europa somewhat deeper than it has in the US. To their credit, they seem to have realized this faster than us Yanks (yet another argument in favor of national homogeneity, thousands of disparate tribes, as there are in the US, are not going to move quickly). Of course, this has lead to some bad things, namely European nations doing things that would probably be construed as racist by their American sycophants-banishing Roma to "scum villages" on the outskirts of town is not a very nice thing. However, white flight is still occurring rapidly, the police are hiding evidence of crime in general, some of which includes minority crime, nonsensical hate crime hysteria arises there too and despite all this, prison populations are increasing, and prison populations are highly slanted towards minorities, which leads to them becoming radicalized in prison. While all this is going on, the police are indeed becoming more militarized and the government spies on them-in short, everything that is wrong with the US, is wrong with Europe, admittedly to a lesser degree (Canada is also starting to go down this same path, but they're a ways off. The legal doctrine of "hate facts" is not a good sign, though. From my knowledge, Canada can be lumped together with the other Anglosphere countries, as starting to go down the New Left path, but there might be hope for them yet. We shall see in the years to come.
I have already spoken of Latin America, and you can use Africa and the Middle East in European contexts in almost the exact same way Latin America can be used in US contexts. Briefly, let's look at East Asia. It seems likely indeed that the next century will be theirs. And it seems like they haven't bitten the multicultural bullet yet, although that doesn't stop the powers that be from trying to pull them into the multikult morass. While they are far from perfect (between China's environmental train wreck and Japan's ridiculous self-neutering, among other problems in other countries), those problems are probably easier to deal with then the West's cultural suicide.
So, after reading all of that, I don't think I ever explicitly stated why I dislike multiculturalism: it's a nice-sounding ideal to be sure, but it has this awful little tendency to shred all cultures of the world into this meaningless, lowest-common denominator nonsense, defined by hollow consumerism and pointless sexual intercourse. It doesn't help that it strangled American high culture in its infancy (Personally, I feel that the high point of American cultural output was from 1920-1970, when much of the worthwhile literary and artistic output I described in Chapter 3 was created. Let me put it this way: in the 20s, Duchamp referred to Eilshemius as a "genuine American master [painter]", I don't think anybody has claimed that title since). Why does it inherently make everything into this beige nothingness? Well, when you have to sell to every demographic, you have to kind of produce bland, LCD garbage. As I mentioned previously, multiculturalism largely started in the US, but why, exactly, did everybody else adapt it rather than just leaving this failed policy within the American borders? Of all the things to take from the US, why McDonalds and other flotsam, rather than Jack London, Ezra Pound, and George Bellows? That, I will not claim to have an answer to.
But now let's leave the economic aspects of the New Left behind, and look at that other wonderful cultural export from the US to the world...which will be continued in Chapter 5.
This article was originally posted on The Barbaric Gentleman
Larsen Halleck
Larsen Halleck is a physical culturist, martial artist, musician, writer, and (barely) a Youtuber and cartoonist- a man of many talents and moderate wages. He blogs about a multitude of subjects at The Barbaric Gentleman where he offers a free fitness PDF to subscribers. His writing and/or videos can also be found on Return Of Kings and New Media Central.
Blog Youtube
Twitter Gab
No comments:
Post a Comment