You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Society’ category.

A Jewish 80-year old billionaire owner of a basketball team has been banned from the NBA for life and is being forced to sell the team. It all looks a set up, but the accusations are very serious. You see, he is a “racist”.

He has a half-black lover and owns a majority black team, and is said to have discriminated against white players, but that doesn’t matter. He is “racist” because he said that he doesn’t want his mistress to post pictures in Instagram together with black athletes she sleeps with.

It all is a farce. The lover who framed him by (illegally) recording a private conversation is a Black-Mexican-Filipino bimbo who attends by the pseudonym “V. Stiviano”. She was carefully oriented by her lawyer in order to obtain a few “racist” sound bites that could be sent to the media and crucify the old man, because everyone knows that there’s nothing worse in the world than “racism”.

The objective seems to have been obtained: Sterling will be forced to sell the team. It is likely that powerful groups who wanted to buy the L.A. Clippers from him were behind the whole scheme.

That is not the tragedy. A gold-digging bitch and a scheming billionaire deserve each other, and they might both die and end in Hell for all I care.

The tragedy is that:

a) America is no longer a free country. It is no longer possible for anyone to have a personal conversation that contradicts the tenets of modern liberalism (or goes against the sacredness of blacks, gays, etc.). In that sense, the recent resignation of Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla and co-creator of Firefox simply for having made a perfectly legal contribution to a campaign favoring traditional marriage (i.e. the only kind of “marriage” as it was understood for thousands of years) is a signal in the same direction; also the resignation of the CEO of Github, because of the complains of a pseudo-feminist who had a hormonal cat-fight against his wife).

b) Even so, even this been clearly a power-play between big sharks, the majority of Americans seem to take at face value the “racism” allegations, and the idea that “racists” have it coming. For the majority of Americans, if you are even slightly “racist” or “homophobic” or “sexist”, then you no longer have free speech, and you should die. It is interesting to observe that no one is recriminating the old billionaire for cheating on his wife, or for doing dubious business, or the black-mexican bimbo for being a gold-digger and illegally recording conversations. No, all that is perfectly fine in the new America. But being “racist”, ah, that’s the real trouble.

Marx said that history repeats itself as farce. America is becoming a farcical repetition of the Soviet State, where you can’t say anything against the status quo, and where an elite has all the power while promising “equality” for the poor schmucks below.

Racist.

There is a story going on in the media that the Boston terrorists (two Chechen immigrants) were not well-adapted to America. One of them even, apparently, said that he had no American friends, “he couldn’t understand them”. (And who can blame him? Sometimes I can’t either)

In any case, I don’t think it is true. I think that they were perfectly adapted. What is America nowadays, after all? A “land of immigrants”, as they call it. But no longer a nation where immigrants are supposed to adapt and assimilate. On the contrary, it is the country that has to bend over backward to accommodate them. “Para Español, marque dos”. For the Multi-Prayer room, just turn Left.

The brothers were Muslim. Luckily, America is not a Christian country, it is a multicultural, multi-faith country. The older brother didn’t have to give up on his religion. In fact, he got married and it was his American wife the one who converted to Islam. It all seemed like a happy love story, until he started to watch too many jihadi videos, abused her, and then decide to blow up a marathon. Oh well, what won’t people do for fun, right?

Both were so assimilated that one had a Green Card and the other was a citizen faster than most people who work slavishly for years on a H1B Visa. They even got a scholarship to study in a prestigious university. “They loved the country”, said her mother. (She also said that they were “angels”, and that they were framed by the evil American government.)

Still, the poor kids felt oppressed. But that was also part of the assimilation process: the cult of victimization. Today in America, if you’re a minority, start complaining and sue someone. If nothing all works, you can always go out with a bang instead than with a whimper.

After all, today there’s no better way to call attention and become famous in America than with some of the good old ultra-violence, as Alex from the Clockwork Orange would say. It will appear on television or on the Internet 24/7. What’s not to like?

Unassimilated Chechens? Not really. They were as American as Major Hassan, as Adam Lanza, as Diebold and Harris. They assimilated all the lessons of contemporary culture.

Too bad that some people had to die because of that.

It is slowly dawning on some people that the transformation of the United States into Northern Mexico and of Europe into Eurabia is not necessarily a good thing. According to an interesting article published in the City Journal, the descendants of the Mexican underclass that cross and live illegally in the American territory, remain, what a surprise, an underclass in the new country. They lead in teenage pregnancies, school abandonment and gang affiliation. The Islamic immigrants in Europe tend to lead in rape and in welfare dependency.

In the US, Democrats tend to favor amnesty for illegals and increased immigration. It is only natural, since they are increasing their voter turnout. They are, however, very much against the patriarchy and against domestic violence. Unfortunately, the illegal Mexican immigrants and their descendants seem to be leaders in domestic violence. The more illegal immigration from Mexico there is, the more domestic violence there will be.

The same is true, incidentally, of the Muslim hordes that invade the European territory, either legally or illegally (doesn’t make that much difference in the end). There is probably no population in the world that is less concerned by “women’s rights” than Muslim populations, from their addiction to genital mutilation to the obligation to wearing veils or to being forced to marry their rapists. Rape, in fact, is also very common in this demographic group. In Norway, in a certain year, apparently 100% of rapes in the country were committed by immigrants, mostly of Muslim origin.

If the US was more like Canada, it could promote more qualified legal immigration instead of the illegal immigration of the underclass. But that’s not how the thing is seen by the authorities, who prefer cheap labor and lots of votes.

The progressive take on the matter seems to be that, by inviting these immigrants into America and Europe, they will be magically changed through education, and therefore they will eventually become progressive. It is a touching belief in the possibilities of changing the human mind. There is a risk, however, that exactly the opposite could happen, that the non-progressive view of the immigrants (at least in what regards women’s issues) could prevail and change society for the worse.

What makes a country is not its geography, not even its government or its institutions. What makes a country is its people. If you change the people through massive immigration, you cannot be surprised that the country changes too. That so many intelligent men are incapable of grasping such an obvious fact is one of the great mysteries of the contemporary age, one that will keep the Historians of the future occupied for decades.

“In America, you have the right to be stupid if you want to be”, said John Kerry, Obama’s new Secretary of State, in a recent speech to German students. It seems, however, that some are abusing the privilege, including members of the current American government. (The fiscal cliff comes to mind.)

Of course, Kerry was actually talking about the importance of free speech, and observing that even unpopular or wrong (“stupid”) views should be permitted, which is a valid point. (That is increasingly untrue, by the way — there are several politically incorrect facts that cannot be mentioned in contemporary discourse in America, and criticizing minorities in any way is strictly verboten, as the German students would say.)

Nevertheless, we can also take his words literally, and wonder up to what point American culture is promoting stupidity, in the phenomenon commonly known as “dumbing down”.  It is true that American pop culture has been leading the world in celebrating stupidity, and where American pop culture goes, global culture goes. We are all Americans now.

Be stupid“, orders us a recent international campaign for Diesel jeans — an Italian brand, but the ad was created by a New York agency. The message is clear: to be reckless and irrational in the search of cheap thrills is to be alive. This is pretty much the general message of the media, from reality shows to commercials.

There have been many American films celebrating stupidity, from “Dumb and Dumber” to “Jackass”. Even “Idiocracy”, while having an interesting opening that criticizes the demographic dumbing down of America, ends up becoming the same form of mindless entertainment that it purports to criticize.

“Forrest Gump” is perhaps a more interesting film. Here the dim-witted protagonist ends up as becoming a moral example, whereas the supposedly smart Jenny ends up joining hippies and dies of AIDS. The film can be seen as a criticism of the cultural revolution of the 60s, although it always bothered me a bit the fact that you’re supposed to see dumbness as the equivalent of moral good.

It is true that, in many cases, because of the leftism indoctrination in American Universities, to be “smart” and to have a diploma merely means to have a high degree of Marxist and progressive ideas inculcated in the brain. But it is also true that there is a stereotype in the USA that liberals are “smart” and culturally savvy, while conservatives are usually seen or portrayed as dumb hicks, clinging to guns and religion.

Of course, that is not really true. While conservatives might be less attuned to contemporary culture and many don’t “get” abstract art, liberals are in many cases just as ignorant of basic economics, such as the fact that money doesn’t grow in trees and you can’t just tax people to death to provide welfare for the non-productive. And, while progressives apparently seem to care a lot about Latino immigrants, their ignorance of Latin American culture and even geography is abysmal. They really see things through they parochial progressive eyes and think that everyone is the world is just like them.

However, what is is true is that there is a certain anti-intellectual bent in part of the American right, which is a pity. While this is understandable, since “intellectual” today in the U.S. usually means “leftist activist”, it seems to me that it is wrong to reject high culture and literacy, throwing the baby along with the water. What Americans should do is get rid of the politically correct claptrap that is currently being taught in the Humanities departments, and return to an education that values the Classics and the canonical works of Dead White Men, as Harold Bloom already argued in 1994 in “The Western Canon“.

We might have the right to be stupid, but it’s not an obligation.

There should be a special place in Hell reserved for Baby Boomers, the generation which came of age in the fateful year 1968, and which still acting out its last shenanigans.

Thanks to them, the world is a much worse place for us, their sons and grandsons. Today it is much harder to get married and have children, it is much harder to have a stable job that lasts for a lifetime, it is much harder get into a good University and not get indebted for life, it is much harder to buy a house, it is much harder to obtain all the things that people before 1968 took for granted. Yes, we have iPods and iPads and all forms of entertainment, and there was (they say) a lot of “social progress”, but is that really such a great deal?

TV series such as “Mad Men” focus on life in the pre-Boomer period, and while there is a superficial criticism of the “sexism” or “racism” of the period, what fuels the show is really nostalgia for a better world.

But we cannot blame exclusively the Boomers, for the following generations haven’t done much better, they just continued the deconstruction process that started to roll from the 60s onwards. Even today, new “fight for your rights” movements come and go, but in the end, they are just there to distract us from noticing that the situation is getting harder and harder for regular people.

Young people today fight for “gay marriage”, “immigration amnesty”, “pro-choice” and other irrelevant social issues, but, in the end, does any of that put food on the table? Does that change things that much for the rest of us? Not really. In fact, things such as illegal unchecked immigration only make things worse for the youth of today, reducing even more the opportunities of employment, and feminism has been bad for most men and women, except for a few. I mean, weren’t relationships much more stable back then?

Still, we mustn’t complain that much. Life is made of cycles, of ups and downs, and things one day will change back again, we will just have to pass through some social upheaval, economic crisis, war, or some other minor discomfort.

A recent study suggests that many people suffer from Facebook envy: they tend to feel more miserable after seeing pictures of their friends (or “friends”) in vacations or having fun with their loved ones. I can attest to this feeling because I also have felt it on occasions. Everybody has a perfect life but me, right?

Said H.W. Thoreau that “most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” That might be true, but still, most people want to pretend to their social circle, when not to complete strangers, that their lives are meaningful and interesting. It is a reinforcing illusion, because if the others believe it, you start to believe it too. And, let’s face it, there are even some freaks who really do have meaningful and interesting lives, far from the humdrum realities of mine or yours.

That would be just a minor inconvenience, were it not for the fact that I am starting to think that Facebook is a negative social phenomenon in many other aspects, promoting bad social behaviours, such as status mongering, consumerism, wasting of time that could be better used in interaction with actual human beings, and an increase in the sense of isolation of those who have 500 “friends” but few real friends.

Why do we have the need to flash our lives and our thoughts before others? I believe it is part of human nature, but, as I have learned the hard way, it is something best done in moderation. Now I like to use Facebook just to chat and to keep up with a few relevant news, but I haven’t posted pictures in a long time. It seems now that there is only a handful of people who matter to me, and I’d rather not bore them with unimportant details.

Another problem with Facebook is that it became full of irrelevant and obnoxious ads (by Facebook and its sponsors) and by political campaigns (by friends) in which I am not interested. It has become an echo chamber of stupidity more than a relevant space to keep in touch with friends, which, I like to think, was the original idea.

Still, I am not out yet. Plus, I’ve became addicted to online Scrabble.

A shocking morning: the Pope announced his retirement. It is the first time that a Pope renounces in more than 600 years.

Contrary to popular opinion, I liked Benedict XVI. His statement about Islam was right on the money, even if he backtracked later, and he spoke forcefully against the relativism of modern times. He seemed an honest man facing unprecedented issues and unrelenting media attacks. Just read right now the delighted response of progressives to the announcement.

He alleged health problems for his decision, and there is no reason to speculate otherwise. He is after all an 84 year old man, and traveling through the world at that age performing massive ceremonies certainly take its toll.

Still, that leaves the Catholic Church with a problem. The forces that seek to liberalize it (that is, to end it) will probably see his resignation as a victory, and push for a black pope, or a gay pope, or for a pope that favors gay marriage, abortion and female priests. It is the Church’s task to find a worthy successor, younger and perhaps even stronger than Benedict in his defense of traditionalism.

I am a lapsed Catholic, and I am not really a follower of the doctrine, but I like the idea of a strong Church that works as a balance against the exaggerations of secular hedonism. While the easiest way would be to bend down, I really don’t see any role for a Church that adapts itself to modern times. If even the Catholic Church changes to accommodate itself to current prejudices, then there is no reason for it to exist, we might as well just create the Church of Liberalism and get done with it.

The secret to having a successful blog is to focus on one specific subject in order to find a captive niche. Alas, since I am more fox than hedgehog, I write about all kinds of stuff, and not with particular originality or a consistent ideology either, this blog seems to be condemned to irrelevance. But since I am not being paid to do it either way, I might as well go on.

Today what called my attention was a mad scientist who wants to clone a Neanderthal. He says he already has the genetic material, all he needs is a “willing woman” to be the surrogate mother.

To be honest, I find the idea shocking and at the same time fascinating, but not very ethical, particularly to the poor Neanderthal. Where would he fit in today’s crazy society? Still, the good scientist says that he considers creating not only one specimen, but perhaps even a whole new race of cavemen:

“When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet or whatever, it’s conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial. They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force. The main goal is to increase diversity. The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity.”

That seems a pretty odd comment. When Stalin tried to cried an army of hybrid ape-men, he was not thinking about “diversity”. Yes, the plan failed and was harebrained (apebrained?) to start with, but, still, there was a military idea behind it, which made some sense in the context of the Cold War.

Today, no scientist would be crazy to mention that his objective is the creation of a super-army: pacifists and human rights organizations would end his career in no time. But see that our scientist mentioned that his goal was to “increase diversity”, and voilà, I don’t doubt that he might even get funding from the appropriate sponsors.

It seems that today, anything that increases diversity is seen as good, even if it’s a diversity of Neanderthals. Then again, since according to recent research a large part of humanity still has Neanderthal genes, this might not even be something completely new.

However, I still think that the scientist should try to focus on more useful and practical research, such as cloning dinosaurs for amusement parks.

Next: affirmative action for the Neanderthal?

Mencius Moldbug has an interesting post about Aaron Swartz, and how he was poisoned by Noam Chomsky, the wealthy promoter of revolutionary socialism as long as it doesn’t affect his interests.

Many young people of today believe far-fetched things, such as that being in the left is being “against the system”. That is all well and good as long as it doesn’t harm or bother the Powers That Be. But some of those activists, either by accident or because they cannot contain their revolutionary urges, end up contradicting the real interests of the system, and as such have to be silenced.

The trick to be a good (and alive) social activist is to know in which side to be (the winning side) and to understand your limits. So if you are an activist for gun control, that is good, but if you start noticing that politicians and the elite are very well protected by the same guns that they want to forbid for the rest of us, you’re entering into dangerous territory. If you are an activist for environmental causes, that is also wonderful, but if you notice that the illegal immigration of millions seems to be pretty bad for the environment, better keep silent. And so on and so forth.

Remember, kids. Better to be safe than sorry.

If you must speak truth to power, bring flowers.

I recently wrote an article about women who risked their lives in the Middle East while looking for work in NGOs or attempting radical artistic performances. Now I read the story of a young rich girl who is living in Syria, wich is as of now in the middle of a violent conflict, taking pictures of little girls learning ballet. She’s a brilliant woman, for sure, a Rhodes scholar even, she’s good-hearted, she’s talented and she is even strikingly beautiful, but is there a point in risking her life and her best years in a place as dangerous as a country in the middle of a civil war?

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: