“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

—NOT Voltaire—

This quote and misattribution has been everywhere on-line since I first used a dial-up modem to get on-line. But is it less true if it actually originated with a white nationalist?

In a similar way, it doesn’t matter if the following comes from Bari Weiss. I hate her politics, toadyism and bloodthirsty apologia for murdering children, and I think she is generally incompetent (a professional writer using words that they don’t understand is like a professional carpenter not understanding how to use a hammer or chisel or etc). But I am grateful for this bit, a report and recording from a lecture titled, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind”:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-psychopathic-problem-of-the-white

That comes from a psychiatrist. That is from Yale. That was delivered to an educated audience at an elite Institution and no one flinched. That should bother everybody, deeply.

Quotes from “that” for those unwilling to open the link:

“This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil.”

“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor.”

“White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time.”

“We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask.”

It doesn’t matter if it is Bari Weiss or Jordan Peterson or the so-called Intellectual Dark Web generally that are most prominently covering this phenomena. The phenomena they are covering is real, persistent, and an absolute menace.

For those who disagree, and perhaps think the quotes are out of context, please listen to the lecture and help me understand better. Thank you.


Just as Mormons twist themselves into pretzels to conform to their Mormon identity, and further constrict what they read, watch, think, etc to make conforming easier, Dems, liberals and leftists in general tie themselves into all kinds of knots so as to avoid NOT being perceived as anything like someone from the other side. This is made easier by simply ignoring anything and everything that might be perceived as coming from that side, by constricting the mind to conform with the latest from ‘their’ side of things. Wokeism is as evil to conform to as “no negroes in the temple” was to conform to. Time to wake up to Wokeism.

Human, colour-blind mind


(Yale is subsequently trying to distance itself from this abject racist, Arjuna Khilanani, but only because people like Weiss got the word out. Khilanani’s Wokeism, however, goes way beyond herself, it is rampant throughout the elite schools and increasingly it is infiltrating the political and corporate spheres.)

Look around carefully, observe closely.
Such is not restricted to one particular subset of humanity.

The hazard is in making an "other" (or a self) into an "enemy."

Well congratulations. You found an academic who I’ve never heard of who presumably said dumb things. Hell, attend any faculty meeting anywhere ever, and you will probably find a sayer of dumb things in that department. English departments seem to have a particular talent for it, but the trait is nearly universal.

The only name in your post that rang any sort of bell for me was Jordan Peterson, mostly for his penchant for self promotion and bullying, though he does seem to go after sayers of dumb things.

Shall we compare lists of sayers of dumb things? Mitch, Matt, Michael, Marjorie, My Pillow Guy, Rudy, various Donalds. Ok, Mitch isn’t dumb. But unlike the names of “elites” that you’re railing about, these are sayers of dumb things pretty much identifiable by first name only. They are not obscure academics. Not a one of them will ever be accused of wokeness.


And whatever dumb things people may say, racism is a real problem in the US and the world at large. People will say dumb things out of frustration with trying to get a handle on the problem. And some of the dumb things turn out to not have been all that dumb in retrospect. This will be an interesting period to look back on 40 years from now.

“Well congratulations. You found an academic who I’ve never heard of who presumably said dumb things.”

Your ignorance is irrelevant, and your “presumably” is… wow.


“Hell,attend any faculty meeting anywhere ever, and you will probably find a sayer of dumb things in that department. English departments seem to have a particular talent for it, but the trait is nearly Universal.”

Again, that you are a math/science nerd is irrelevant.


“The only name in your post that rang any sort of bell for me was Jordan Peterson, mostly for his penchant for self promotion and bullying, though he does seem to go after sayers of dumb things.”

Irrelevant, again.


“Shall we compare lists of sayers of dumb things? Mitch, Matt, Michael, Marjorie, My Pillow Guy, Rudy, various Donalds. Ok, Mitch isn’t dumb. But unlike the names of “elites” that you’re railing about, these are sayers of dumb things pretty much identifiable by first name only. They are not obscure academics. Not a one of them will ever be accused of wokeness.”

The other side’s dumb is dumber than my side’s dumb. Yep, as shitlib dumb as it comes. Dumb just gets dumber.


“And whatever dumb things people may say, racism is a real problem in the US and the world at large.”

Yep. For example (with a single tweak):

“This is the cost of talking to Jews at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. Jews make my blood boil.”

That you only presume that something dumb was said is…wow.


Maybe you have fantasies of your own about emptying a revolver in some group’s head? Is it the Literature department?

Anyway, your post is dumb. If you think this lecture is something of an outlier, give me a better reason than your usual reduction that everyone is dumb except for me.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think this
> lecture is something of an outlier, give me a
> better reason than your usual reduction that
> everyone is dumb except for me.
===============================

One of the things taught at centers of higher education is critical thinking.
It comes off as a kind of (sometimes very) annoying skepticism.

So, the good thing is this:
Just because someone says something from a podium at Yale does not mean it is received as gospel.
It's not like a political rally.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well congratulations. You found an academic who
> I’ve never heard of who presumably said dumb
> things. Hell, attend any faculty meeting anywhere
> ever, and you will probably find a sayer of dumb
> things in that department. English departments
> seem to have a particular talent for it, but the
> trait is nearly universal.
================================

Rather well demonstrates higher learning and wisdom are not necessarily correlated.

Plenty of learned fools out there. These are potentially the most dangerous.
Especially when these do not know what they do not know.
Nothing is more dangerous than dogma divorced from the real.

These pick up the pen; others fight their cause.
Consider the horror that was last century.


[Not dissing education, but it is a gateway -- not a guarantee]

I hear a lot of people these days decrying the evils of "wokeness".

Perhaps I'm under thinking things, but to me all it means is that a person has recognized that they carry within them inherent biases that deserve to be rooted out and examined, along with a related realization that other's experiences may be different and valid. I'm not sure what's evil about that, but maybe I'm not "woke" enough.

I think you’re under thinking things.

Incidentally, I took a few forms of the now discredited Harvard ‘Project Implicit’ Test. It said I have a slight bias against white people. I chalk that up to hating Bird and loving Dr. J. as a kid.

What, then, does it mean to you, and why do you associate it with the rantings of the subject in your OP?

It wasn’t a rant, it was formal talk given at Yale. If it was merely a rant, rather than an ideological conviction, a conviction that is spreading, I wouldn’t have bothered.


I gotta run, but one of many of my concerns is outlined by Katie Herzog, a lefty indie jouro, who first alerted me to these kinds of problems while reporting on the Evergreen State College fiasco:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-doctors-cant-speak

Headline: What Happens When Doctors Can't Tell the Truth?

Whole areas of research are off-limits. Top physicians treat patients based on their race. An ideological 'purge' is underway in American medicine.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An
> ideological 'purge' is underway in American
> medicine.
=================================

Ever work with medical doctors?
It's like herding cats. (Really. It is.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
Right-think and purges inevitably fail with these, as these obstinately resist conformity and group-think.
A major reason physicians are distrusted is these cannot be readily controlled and thereby rendered "safely inert"

Curse of the Jesuits.

The article is about the effects of the wokeness orthodoxy, which is basically teaching people to lie. You can’t speak honestly anymore, so you have to lie to get by. This is what is happening to American society. So as appalling as Donald Trump is, I understand why he has so much support. Somebody has to stand up to the sovietization of America.

        

Finally, I get to be inferior because of the color of my skin. Before, it had something to do with wanking or not paying enough tithing.

Could you be one of those who didn't pay tithing as you wanked!

If church wanted 10% of my seed, what would they do with it? Pass it around RS with a turkey baster to make a bunch of little mes?

I didn't see any innermost thoughts included from the worst of white supremist people included in the article.

I also think the article is dumb. She's trying to be a shit starter and fan the race flames by picking the worst of one side, IMO.

I get that the woke thing strays off into the weeds about cartoons and gets annoying. That said, it has been important for many people to buy a vowel.

I think we should be more concerned about why we have been so dishonest about how we have taught history. I was never taught in school about Tulsa. I was taught it was our "manifest destiny" to go out and take or kill anything, using God as justification. Critical race theory is a hot thing here in Idaho where they are making laws to make sure teachers can't be honest. The "psychopathic" problem seems like made up hoopla from...surprise...a psychologist giving a lecture for continuing education credits. So, yeah. Dumb things.

I agree with BoJ, especially his last paragraph.

It’s amusing that the speaker’s name and background don’t show up till nearly the end of the article and then only in the form of a replicated announcement. Why is that? Because she is so obscure a thinker that the name isn’t important?

Yet that suggests she was chosen not for her expertise or influence but merely because her arguments are easy to criticize. Meanwhile you imply that she represents progressive thinkers.

This seems much like Free Man’s ludicrous introduction of a Berkeley professor who had the misfortune of not actually existing. In either case the attack is on a straw man. Pluck a stupid or exaggerated speech from a marginal figure, attack it, and then pretend you’ve vanquished everyone with whom you disagree.

I’m all for that. I firmly believe that Ammon Bundy’s buffoonery proves that Payne and Hayek and Friedman were idiots.

Where would we be without Hollywood celebrities, academes, and sports stars to provide our moral compass?

https://babylonbee.com/news/powerful-lebron-james-pulls-over-to-lecture-homeless-man-on-his-white-privilege

Trust you to put academics in the same category as pop stars.

But then again, there are one or two television celebrities that you’d follow anywhere, even over beaten police into the halls of Congress one winter’s day. . . So maybe you aren’t really dissing academics.

He died of natural causes.

Can you imagine the outcry if Aruna Khilanani had said the same about minorities while wearing a red MAGA cap? I'm sure you'd be outraged, instead of dismissing "KILL-anani" as an inconsequential, unknown academic from Yale.

Just like burning down blocks and blocks of major cities were "mostly peaceful protests.

Speaking of "racists" wearing red caps, I can remember when Jessie Smollett had to PAY his Black friends to commit a racist crime to show the world just how racist America is. I'm gratified to see how our erudite elites (here's to you, LW!) are rooting (pun intended) out racism everywhere!

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-03-at-3.08.25-PM.png?w=928&ssl=1

Which cities had "blocks and blocks" burned down?

Not Portland. They vandalized a courthouse, and damage to federal buildings exceeded $2 million, but that's not "blocks and blocks."

Not Seattle. CHAZ took up all of four blocks. There was indeed violence in that space, but it wasn't burned down.

Minneapolis? That was the closest thing. There WAS a lot of damage done. Long rows of businesses were looted and damaged, some by fire, but even so it doesn't qualify. Here are maps of the damaged areas:

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/

The fire damage was concentrated in a few intersections, mainly in the Third Precinct. That's not "blocks and blocks" of burn-down. (And did you know that the right-wing Boogaloos played a part in the Minneapolis riots?)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-boogaloo-fired-ak-at-minneapolis-police-precinct-feds-say

The NYT abandoned the Sicknick death-as-homicide for the simple reason that it wasn't one. You see, as better information comes in, rational and honest people can change their opinions and views. You ought to try it sometime. Based on your track record, though, the odds aren't good.

$2M is about the cost of one cop doing something stupid. Cities pay that out all the time. I don’t think it will bankrupt them.

Thanks for the informative update.

In SLC, all that got burnt was a police car and the car of that clown who showed up with a bow and arrows and a hunting knife, and got the crap beat out of him by the crowd.

Just last week was the first guilty plea by one of the four people charged with burning the police cruiser. The other three cases are still pending.

That first night, there were also a few glass doors and windows broken. No looting that I am aware of, and the only other damage was paint thrown around in front of the police HQ a few weeks later. That was orchestrated, and arrests were made. Paint, especially fresh paint, is not all that hard to power wash off buildings and roads.

I said nothing about Sicknick or his “narrative.” I referred to beaten cops, of whom there were dozens.

I've spent the majority of my teaching career working with black children and black families. The vast majority of the families that I've worked with are open-minded and kind towards white people, probably more than we deserve. A few are not.

I had one student who learned from her parents to be quite prejudiced towards white people. She was quite hateful and rude towards me. I let it roll off of me to the largest extent possible, and gave her the same level of quality instruction that I've given to all of my students. The teacher she had the following year, who is black, must have gotten through to her somehow. She must have convinced her that I did right by her. There came a point where my former student became kind and polite to me. It surprised me greatly, but I was glad to see it.

I know that black people have had it rough. One thing that got through to me was when a former Secret Service agent was discussing what it was like to protect former first lady Michelle Obama. The agent said that a lot of ugly, racial slurs were cast Mrs. Obama's way when she was out in public, and that Mrs. Obama simply ignored them. The agent was unable to do anything about it, since the slurs did not represent a direct threat. This made me realize what ordinary black people must put up with on a daily basis.

I think most people just want to feel that they have a fair shot at life -- at getting a decent education, a good job, equitable access to housing, etc. They want to be treated kindly and politely. I don't think that's too much to ask. Having said that, at a certain point, one needs to pick up the ball and run with it. Two years ago, when I was going through students' permanent records at the end of the year, I discovered that the ONE family among my students who owned their own home was a first-generation immigrant family from Mexico. They came here and hit the ground running.

“The Obstacles of not Being White” come in soooooo many forms and fashions.

I'm sure. Since the U.S. will become majority minority by the 2040s, that may not always be the case.

One can hope, although that depends in large measure on whether non-white people are free to vote.

True that.

My pointing out at the top of the thread that if you search around a bit and do some cherry picking, it is not hard to find an academic saying something stupid. In fact sometimes it is hard finding an academic not saying something stupid. I singled English departments out for special notice.

Human dismissed my brilliant points as irrelevant. Hard to argue with that sort of incisive counter-argument.

Meanwhile, right after my post, I read a response to a question from a parent concerned that their son wanted to be an English major. The response matched my opinion of English Departments, and was far wittier, so I pass it on here. (and permission to forward was included in the email communication, so a full paragraph quote ought to be OK). I inserted some white space for readability.
----------------------------------
Mr. Keillor,

My son is finishing up his first year of college and is thinking of majoring in English, and I would love to know your thoughts about whether this is a worthwhile thing for him to do. Wouldn’t it be better to go into an engineering, math, or science field? Not everyone becomes a best-selling author like you, and I’d like him to be able to earn a livable wage.

Concerned Mom

Your son will follow his enthusiasm and ambition and find some good teachers and that will lead him off in directions unknown. I think the Department of English is one of the worst places to go since it’s been so thoroughly politicized and demented, and the pleasure of language has been completely leached out. Mortuary Science is a celebration compared to the English Dept.

Take notice of what he’s reading and read the works for yourself and maybe start up a conversation. If he insists on majoring in English, offer to pay him for two years to sit in a rented room in a small town and read all the classics from Chaucer to Cheever and Jane Austen and Dickens and not skip Henry James and the Brontës and Twain and do Shakespeare, of course, and Shelley and Hardy, but no criticism — keep him away from the teachers.

During those two years, he’ll likely find a lover and if, as odds favor, she’s a woman, then a family is likely, and they’ll need to think about income. Best-selling authors don’t come out of the English Department: it is there to kill their interest, so English grads tend to become English teachers, and this is perilous work. You can be the greatest Shakespeare scholar in the land but if two students accuse you of insensitivity to people with freckles and brown eyes, you’re likely to be thrown in the ditch.

This sort of nonsense doesn’t go on in engineering or math because in those fields, there is a clear demarcation of competence, unlike in the humanities where it is entirely a beauty contest. Good luck to you both and if you’ve been neglecting prayer in your life, now is the time to resume.

GK



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2021 05:21PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I might add that I was both a math and engineering major. While I am sure I come across as a flaming liberal here, that is mostly because I am compared to the unreconstructed troglodytes that sometimes roam here that are not yet ready to be allowed out into polite society.

In the real world of normal people, I have managed to get myself in the crosshairs of the English Department at least 4 times. One time I deserved, and I feel bad about that. The other three were totally eye-roll worthy. So I speak from significant experience when it comes to recognizing academics saying stupid things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2021 05:41PM by Brother Of Jerry.

“because I am compared to the unreconstructed troglodytes that sometimes roam here that are not yet ready to be allowed out into polite society”

Try mouth breathing, you might like it.

English departments face a difficult challenge: there is only so much you can say about art and it becomes ever more difficult to come up with something that will pique interest enough to garner a Ph.D. So for decades the discipline has pursued the backstreets and alleys of academia to find things that give broader relevance to pieces of art.

I often tell people that if they love literature they should not do lit crit, comp lit, or English above the undergraduate level. Such a course teaches people to hate literature and produces social and philosophical schema that are in most, but not all, cases useless. Foucault makes a lot more sense in a history, social sciences, or philosophy curriculum than in the English Department.

By the same token, taking seriously some silliness published by a junior academic trying to earn her stripes is a waste of time.

It's been 25 years since I was very involved with that crowd, so the names that were debated at the time may be out of date - Foucault, Derrida, Rorty. The debates were intense and almost utterly humorless. It reminded me of the line from The Sounds of Silence: "we speak of things that matter, with words that must be said. Can analysis be worthwhile? Is the theater really dead?"

It did help me understand why their house parties were always so well stocked with vodka. It both enabled the bloviating, and served as a survival tool.

Yes. It's significant that Derrida renounced deconstructionism at the end of his life, describing it as a cul-de-sac, which I think is right.

Foucault, on the other hand, is very useful. It's important to know how words changed over the course of centuries--otherwise you can't understand what Shakespeare actually meant when he spoke of the madman. But that's more philology than literature, and history rather than deconstruction. Foucault was sort of grafted into lit crit, and it was not a natural fit.

Ah, I had no idea that Derrida had a deathbed repentance, so to speak. Sadly, I am not all that familiar with Foucault. I always had trouble with Shakespeare, I think for the exact reason you mention - words often had different meanings then.

I always liked Jorge Luis Borges, apparently one of the founders of postmodernism. He had a solid grounding in formal logic, and a wry sense of humor about logical paradox. Kurt Vonnegut also had a solid grounding in science, not literature. His undergrad was in a hard science - chemistry. It showed in his writing.

We're getting a little deep into the weeds here, and I'm talking about authors from a half century ago. I'm sounding like an old guy. :-/

“Derrida renounced deconstructionism at the end of his life, describing it as a cul-de-sac”

I’ve wondered about this very aspect of RFM. We deconstruct Mormonism like a 10-year-old taking apart his toys, but what do we do with the pieces? Where does it lead but a Godless exile where faith has no place? In most cases.

For the most part in RfM, God is dead. Maybe that’s what it took to kill the beast. If so, the church killed God. Not us. Now your eyes are like black holes in the skies. This is where Mormonism left you. But then, freedom never was cheap.

So, whither faith and all of its mystical manifestations? Is the cul-de-sac good enough?

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." most likely came from Kevin Alfred Strom (white nationalist, holocaust denier, and white separatist).

From his 1993 essay "All America Must Know the Terror that is Upon Us"...
"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"

He was a complete twat. But like a broken clock, he was right occasionally.

HH =)

+1000


OP has some serious racism going on in their white little mind. Too much FOXNEWS; and too little empathy, exposure, and compassion. Obvious to all.


HH =)

There's a lot of that on this board.

Having canceled everyone else's culture and in many cases their rights, the dominant class is appalled that anyone insists on greater objectivity. Rather than address that, however, it's easier to find an extreme example of non-white silliness (see OP) and attack it as a straw man in an attempt to demonstrate the victimhood of the pure and delightsome.

That's why the number of non-white participants on the board varies over time from 1 to 3.

I was white and Mormon, so maybe they have a point.

Yes, there are black racists. At least they are up front about it: “We don’t like white people around here”. Can you blame them?

But you’re right that the politics of resentment is the wrong way to fix the problem unless you intend to burn down the old system. Which has worked how many times? Teaching kids to harbor resentment and take offense where none is intended must be a new kind of wisdom that I don’t understand.

Since income inequality is growing, and proven to destabilize societies, wokeness is pouring fuel on the fire. Maybe this is intentional. Maybe they should listen to the famous Rodney King: “Why can’t we all just get along?”.

We have a divide and conquer game being played in the western world right now. Someone wants to divide us along racial lines and agitate everyone and that makes our society weak and easier to control. It’s an old trick.

Psychopathy exists in all groups of people all over the world. It’s not specific to any one race. I would be careful not to tar any one group with the social/political climate we currently are in because no good comes from it.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a divide and conquer game being played . . . It’s an old trick.
===============================

Oldest trick in the book


> Psychopathy exists in all groups of people all
> over the world. It’s not specific to any one
> race.
===============================

Solid ground


Divisions begin within, persist through self-blindness, are exploited by the Rasputins of the world -- but only because we allow it

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . in the western world right now. Someone wants to
> divide us along racial lines

Are you asserting that the United States, for instance, has not always been divided along racial lines?

Growing up in Las Vegas, it was like in many small towns: The railroad tracks divided the skin tones.

I read about that the other day. This brahmin needs to lose its license and be sent back to India post haste

She knows so much about "oppression."