Saturday, July 25, 2015

Minority Wars and the Future of Progressivism

Minority Wars:
Why The Next Ten Years Will Set Everyone Against Everyone


"Since the 1970s, social psychologists have been aware that emphasising differences between groups leads to mistrust and hostility. In a series of landmark experiments, the psychologist Henri Tajfel found that even wearing different-coloured shirts was enough for groups to begin displaying signs of mistrust.

So guess what happens when you tell everyone that their worth, their ability, their right to speak on certain subjects and – shudder – their “privilege” is based on what they were born with, rather than any choices they’ve made or who they are?

It’s possible that feminists mistrust the likes of O’Malley and Sanders because they’re male. Or gay progressives mistrust them because they’re straight. Or trans activists mistrust them because they’re cis.

This is what the future of progressivism looks like: blacks fighting gays fighting lesbians fighting trans fighting everyone else. It’s the iron law of victimhood-driven identity politics. Someone has to win, and everyone else has to lose.

Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. But for legacy castes, it can be humiliating and deeply unfair. Take MTV’s White People, for instance: an hour of television designed to produce discomfort in those with the wrong skin colour.

Safe to say, it’ll be a while before we see Black People on our screens.

But it also pits minority group against minority group. If the last ten years in the public square were defined by women ridiculing, criticising and demeaning men, the next ten are going to be even more depressing, and even more socially divisive. Welcome to the era of Minority Wars."

More specifically Minority Class Wars.
"It sounds laughably ironic, but the modern progressive movement has argued itself into a position where people can be discriminated against on the basis of gender, skin colour and orientation."
Don't forget those Leftist favorite: anti-semitism; pro-Islam. Anti-Christian; Pro-Atheist. Anti-pro-responsibility; pro-killing-your-progeny.
"That’s why you hear dismissive and in some cases even vituperative comments about “straight white males” in the media today: men are being ridiculed for things they cannot change about themselves. And it’s the political left doing the discrimination.

The future of the progressive movement will be akin to the nightmarish community of grievance-bloggers on Tumblr, where minorities, both real and imagined, engage in an endless competition for supreme victimhood status. You can already see it happening on social media and in spats between celebrities, such as this week’s hair-pulling contest between Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna and Katy Perry.

Taylor Swift has made the mistake of being white, so other white middle-class people pretend to hate her as a form of virtue-signalling. They’re telling the world what kind, sensitive, racially-aware and hip people they are by slamming Swift, and everyone is desperate to get in on the act.

Gawker, The Guardian and The Atlantic have already turned on her with racially-charged allegations – not forgetting to point out she’s a “bad feminist” for having the temerity to disagree with another woman, especially a black one.

White guilt and the synthetic outrage of Twitter mobs is harnessed by these publications for fury clicks. What’s really happening is that the self-described social justice icons of our generation are driving people apart and pitting minority against minority for profit and for their own twisted amusement.

The consequences for Left-wing politicians and media figures to the new Minority Wars will be disastrous. Ordinary people know this is a cruel spectacle cooked up by bored, spoilt, rich white middle-class bloggers in New York, and they see the damage it does to relations between ordinary blacks, gays and transsexuals".
There's much more at the LINK.

One of the most interesting is the march of Swedish homosexuals through a Muslim neighborhood: can you guess which Victimhood Class gets trashed? Does it matter? Of course not. What matters to the individual Victimhood Tribe is just themselves, and no opposition, even from any other Progressive Victimhood Designation, has any moral claim greater than theirs, especially to oppose theirs, much less to surpass or supersede theirs.

Individual false morals can wind up no other way. Righteous indignation of the self-endowed, self-anointed morally elite "progressives" consumes them, and renders them hate machines. They do not "progress"; they have regressed back into war societies based on tribal loyalties.

UPDATE:
Jon Stewart doesn't like his white privilege questioned... by his token black staffer.

10 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Very interesting article! What I find strange coming from you though is that I recognize you under that passage:
"Even if you’re straight, white, and wealthy, there’s always some way to claim you’re being oppressed and at least make a good showing"
since you commented before on how straight white males are being attacked... didn't you?

The solution seems to simply be to not be offended by attacks on out race/gender/orientation/etc... and move on. Unless there are specific examples of a group being attacked only for who they are, the rest is all talk, with no substance.

Cheers

Stan said...

So you are saying that white males are not being attacked, and that it is a lie to say that they are?

Hugo Pelland said...

Simply put, correct, I dont think white males are being attacked, not at all.

However, I get where that impression comes from, as there are groups of people who wrongly accuse white males as a whole of being 'insert discrimination du jour'. And that is simply wrong. But if you are not someone doing the 'discrimination du jour', then the attack is baseless, and I personally just ignore.

Plus, we cannot deny the fact that white males are, on average, much better off than any other group, so it's not surprising to see irrational accusations fuelled by jealously!

It will bother me the day I see repeated examples of explicit discrimination against white males. There might be some isolated cases already I suppose, and I would agree these incidents can be seen as attacks. But to my knowledge, it's mostly just people whining, so it's inconsequential...

Maybe I am ignorant of some trends though; do you think there is actually a pattern of attacks?

Stan said...

Maybe I am ignorant of some trends though; do you think there is actually a pattern of attacks?

White privilege and paternalism are being taught in government schools, and are ingrained into incoming freshmen in many colleges now. Anywhere that Affirmative Action is in play, whites are replaced by lesser qualified minorities in order to meet "non-existent" quotas.

Affirmative Action hurts minorities (blacks) as much as anything. It guarantees the impression that a black has gotten whatever he has due to the relaxation of standards to his level, relaxations which are not provided to whites. The impression, then, is imprinted that blacks are perpetually inferior and cannot compete without special compensation, and further that blacks who are truly gifted are tarred with this same impression. That is a devastating effect on blacks, inflicted by Leftist Do-Gooders who can't see the impact of their actions.

But the Left will not relent in their Messiahism nor their perpetuation of their designated Victimhood Classes. Where do Whites and Males fit into their three class scheme? Oppressors, of course. So where do you think that pursuit is headed?

It's true that much of this, other than government dictates, is just hate speech. But that's how Lenin started out before the revolution; that's how Mao started out before the revolution; that's how Hitler started out, before his minority election and political revolution.

It's how it starts out. Demonization. Every time. Your nonchalance and non-concern is reflected in every defeated group.

Hugo Pelland said...

Interesting because I have always seen the concept of Affirmative Action to be the other way around: within a pool of applicants with similar qualifications, we want to avoid discrimination of minorities (not just black at all, this includes women, people with disabilities, and other ethnicity) such that we end up with a fair game for all. But the problem is that, and that's where I actually agree with you, it ends up forcing certain minorities to be favored over non-minorities, for equal qualifications; that's just ridiculous. Moreover, where's the evidence that " whites are replaced by lesser qualified minorities"; this would be a complete different stories and I don't believe it, not at all. 'Replacing' would literally imply taking someone's job away and giving it to someone else!

Also, that being said, I was referring to something a bit different actually... more along the line of the label of 'Oppressor' you just mentioned. That's what I meant by 'attacks', this labeling of white males as 'Oppressors' or some other bad qualifier. Are you really concern by that? To me it's just whining... and I seriously doubt that they are teaching something like that in college, this is just ridiculous. Some teachers might share their opinions, but college students are adults; they can think for themselves...

Stan said...

”Interesting because I have always seen the concept of Affirmative Action to be the other way around: within a pool of applicants with similar qualifications, we want to avoid discrimination of minorities (not just black at all, this includes women, people with disabilities, and other ethnicity) such that we end up with a fair game for all.”

Do you really want the fireman that rescues you to be a quadriplegic in a wheelchair? You must accept that without complaint under your conditions. You cannot use the “similar qualifications” criteria, either: that is discriminatory. There is no possible way for reverse discrimination to benefit anyone. That is purely another tool of the historical Democrat Discrimination Machine. It always, always works against blacks, in more ways than one. It places blacks into positions where they are not prepared, and they fail. Ask yourself this: why did Obama take his children out of public schools? Why did Obama stop exceptional black children in Washington DC from the privilege of choosing better schools (he did that the second day of his term of president). Why are schools in black neighborhoods so incredibly inferior? It’s not because of George Bush or Republicans or conservatives or white privilege. It’s because they are maintained that way by the Blue Model governments, elected on the basis of reverse racism.

”But the problem is that, and that's where I actually agree with you, it ends up forcing certain minorities to be favored over non-minorities, for equal qualifications; that's just ridiculous.”

There is a class-action lawsuit in California by Asians who are discriminated against by legal affirmative action. In California, affirmative action applies ONLY to blacks; all other minorities get the reverse discrimination treatment, and have their well-deserved college admissions given to blacks purely for racial reasons.

Stan said...

”Moreover, where's the evidence that " whites are replaced by lesser qualified minorities"; this would be a complete different stories and I don't believe it, not at all. 'Replacing' would literally imply taking someone's job away and giving it to someone else!”

Not so. By “replacing” is meant that the better qualified white is automatically de-selected in the hiring process for open positions. This is demanded legally for hiring federal employees under AA, and especially for hiring contractors for federal projects.

”Also, that being said, I was referring to something a bit different actually... more along the line of the label of 'Oppressor' you just mentioned. That's what I meant by 'attacks', this labeling of white males as 'Oppressors' or some other bad qualifier. Are you really concern by that? To me it's just whining... and I seriously doubt that they are teaching something like that in college, this is just ridiculous.”

You are apparently unaware of the anti-privilege, anti-microaggression codes being placed on faculty and administration in many US universities, and the entire system in California. I think that I must bring the entire news system onto the blog here for your use, and I have considered how to do that. News is available outside of the Leftist MSM mouthpiece propaganda and news-concealment arms. But one must want to find it, of course. Ironically, much US news is actually found in British and foreign publications, news which will be available in the MSM only if ultimately forced by political attention.

And then confirm it if possible. However, I might start to bring ALL the news of such attacks into single articles, if I have time. But I am not a professional at this, and after all, it is a person’s own responsibility to seek out the facts and to filter for truth for himself. So I’m not sure if I’ll actually do it. Why should I even have to?

A few years back I started a list of all of the scandals in the Obama administration. The list got to about 45 within a month, and I realized that there were several scandals and official scofflaws per day (Holder was a constant source) and that I didn’t really have the time to document them, and still do other things which the blog and my real life need done.

” Some teachers might share their opinions, but college students are adults; they can think for themselves...”

Several professors in this state have lost lawsuits in court for demanding that students renounce their religions or fail their classes. It doesn’t seem to stop such browbeating at slightly lesser intensities, but it might have set it back a bit. Your claim, above, is not realistic; professors hold considerable power over their students: the power of the grade and the student’s success. Give such power to the overwhelmingly Leftist faculties, and the product is just what is expected: abuse of power by indoctrination. That’s why a high percentage of college graduates are now virtually unemployable; they become culture warriors without actual skills other than cultural disruption. This does not apply to hard sciences it appears, but it does apply to most other degrees, which is the bulk of graduates.

Also, many college students require "safe spaces" where they can escape ideas which conflict with their own ideologies. To allow conservative speakers on campus is a microaggression, and they are shouted off-campus before they get there. The list of those is very long. Comedians now don't work campuses, because any contrary thoughts result in riotous attacks intended to stop the performance.

Sheesh. The list of this type of non-thinking on campus is huge and well documented elsewhere. I'll not waste more time on it.

Hugo Pelland said...

Well at least I can agree with 1 thing: "it is a person’s own responsibility to seek out the facts and to filter for truth for himself." And the rest is all... well, not what I believe to be true, to be polite.

As someone who actually lives in California, who personally know people in school here right now, and many who went to colleges here, and read the local news, national news, international news, from many sources, I don't recognize much in what you say. It's so extreme compared to the reality I see around me... yes, lawsuits and pseudo-crisis do happen all the time, but for so many issues, on so many different fronts. Your opinion seems to focus only on what you want to see. It's very ironic coming from someone who argue that we need to filter information and get more sources. I am afraid you forget to read the "other" side's point of view. The quotes you post for instance are almost exclusively from right wing blogs... I guess all the rest is evil leftist MSM?

Stan said...

You always couch your replies in what "you agree with". That's of little to no concern to me. What is of importance is what you can prove, and the methods you use to prove it. So when you decide to actually prove something I say to be in error, then and only then do we have something to discuss.

You appeal exclusively to personal observation and to class ("right wing blogs"). Your prejudice is obvious: you believe only the things which you wish to be true, from sources you wish to be truthful.

You do nothing to refute the Fifth Column reporting which is now necessary - and available. You merely dismiss it.

So: nothing of substance as usual.

BTW, for the most nasty occurrences I go to HuffPo and CBSNBCABC and NYT/WaPo to see if they carry the same information or if they provide a cover-up, or nothing at all, and when they actually DO provide coverage, then I link to them. If the affront is egregious enough, Fast and Furious, and IRS scandal, for example, one or more will carry it, but not until days or weeks later and then will leave out detail.

So I really don't care what you agree with. When you can prove something, then we can talk.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ok, fair point, I was not trying to prove anything here so, no problem, moving on. Thanks.