Bearing Down For A Better World
Lifted from the comments yesterday, Class War unveil their latest triumph of radical activism. Because, according to one class warrior,
It’s our job for the rich to fear us.
When not waging a “decisive battle against gentrification” by smashing the windows of an estate agent, the Class War Massive declare their ambition to “get rid of the rich” – by as yet unspecified but apparently terminal means. This heady intellectual broth has inevitably attracted our finest minds, among them, the self-styled “rebel ethnographer” Dr Lisa Mckenzie, whose mental adventures have previously entertained us.
They’re the thinkers, don’t you know?
AKA, the first ones against the wall in a real revolution.
David, what do you make of Vox Day?
what do you make of Vox Day?
I don’t know enough to have much of an opinion. I know he’s written a book called SJWs Always Lie, which is a pretty good title.
Class War . . . fighting for the working class??? I suspect that none of them will have done in an honest days work in their entirely life. And wouldn’t recognise one if it bit a chunk out their bottom.
Btw, IMHO, Vox Day is a twerp. Okay he upsets the SocJus types, but then so does anyone else who isn’t 100% Goodthink. I used to think that because he upset the PC Brigade he couldn’t be that bad, but anyone who defends Marital Rape http://heatst.com/world/feminism-debates-vox-day-vs-louise-mensch-on-marital-rape/ or the idea that educating women interferes with their breeding http://www.johndbrown.com/what-vox-day-believes/
Frankly, in his own way, Vox Day’s a big a wanker as those Class War yobbos.
Frankly, in his own way, Vox Day’s a big a wanker as those Class War yobbos.
Newton’s 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.
Newton’s 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.
Based on the little I’ve read, what strikes me is the degree to which leftist identity politics is being pushed against with… well, more identity politics. I can see the temptation, given the demographic and cultural concerns, and the endless accusations of white devilry, and I can see the argument that ‘If it’s so good for your tribe, why not mine?’ But it’s a walk past some pretty desolate territory.
Newton’s 3rd Law of Activism. To every politicised idiot there is an equal and opposite politicised idiot.
On the theme of equal and opposite idiots, has Glenn Reynolds joined this camp?
An extraordinary post on his usually sound website:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242643/
PROTESTERS SHOULD HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SUCH ARRESTS, AND IT SHOULD INVOLVE KILLING MID-LEVEL SECURITY OFFICIALS AND THEIR FAMILIES: Venezuela Prepares for Massive Protests By Arresting Activists.
I have run into this debate before and from what I have read, Vox Day is literally, objectively correct that educating women interferes with their “breeding” as you so distastefully phrase it. Like the prevalence of currently incurable diseases, this may be an unhappy matter that one hopes to remedy at some future date, and it may be phrased in inflammatory terms, but it’s a fact and should be faced, rather than calling Day a “wanker” for mentioning it. Intelligence has a hereditary component; education depresses women’s fertility; there is a tradeoff here between credentialing more of the smartest women in one generation and having more smart people in future generations. If you favor more of the first, that is a defensible position, but for God’s sake, you should be aware that you’re paying for it with less of the second.
I also sympathize with his position on Marital Heartstring-tugging Emotionally Loaded Word Attempting To Steal The Argument Via Connotation: (henceforth HELWATSTAVC) marriage used to be a contract including the obligation of sex, under which one couldn’t “helwatstavc” one’s spouse any more than one could “steal” from the joint bank account one might have with one’s spouse. Use it boorishly, yes; criminally, no, and the other term begs the question.
Today, of course, one might say the contract is rewritten and there’s no such obligation. But that raises the question of just what is there to marriage today, with its ongoing redefinition down to “love” and the redefinition of that in turn down to “infatuation”, along with green-card-marriages and tax-break-marriages and celebrity-headline marriages? Day has staked out the fairly reasonable position that a baseline marriage is a non-vacuous thing with concomitant expectations and obligations, and one of those obligations is sexual. If you don’t like the thought of sexual obligations, consider not signing a contract that obliges you to perform, rather than accusing Day of defending one of the words in the English language with the most negative affect.
I should imagine that Mr Corbyn and Dr Mckenzie have mastered much the same manoeuvres as Polly Toynbee, who, despite her resentful denunciations of “the rich” – whom she names “pigs” – doesn’t in fact seem to have a problem with wealth – her own, I mean. Even when it exceeds that of the people she denounces as shameless, grasping and obscene.
I call this rationalisation the “Burton Defence”, after the actor Richard Burton, who, when asked if he saw a contradiction between being a millionaire several times over and a communist, is alleged to have said, “I now earn one and a quarter of a million dollars per picture, and it sounds strange to say that at heart I am a Communist, but there is no contradiction because I don’t exploit others.” The underlying and unspoken implication being of course that it’s fine for me to be wealthy, as I’m the one being exploited. But if you’re exploiting others, then that’s beyond the pale, and worthy of condemnation.
Microbillionaire,
Hear, hear. Feminism’s attitude to reproduction seems to be that it’s possible to have the pleasure of being a grandmother without first having had the hassle of being a mother.
Hi Microbillionaire,
I’m just reading what Vox Day says and drawing my own conclusions. And based on he says, and that’s what he says and not you think (or like to think) he says, I conclude that the guy is a . . . well, perhaps wanker is a bit harsh.
How about twerp?
I mean someone who issues a sixteen point definition of the Alt-Right and . . . Yeah, I know the Alt-right is the SocJus types latest bogey-man; but just like VD just ‘cos SocJus don’t like ’em doesn’t mean they’re the good guys . . . anyway, at point 14 VD coincidentally(?)includes The Fourteen Words; creed of a white supremacist group.
http://archive.is/GFlAK and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
And given that I think twerp is a fair, or even kind, designation for him.
The fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
Sounds absolutely awful.
As an occasional VoxDay reader, I’d say some of his analysis is spot on i.e that the #NeverTrump gang have expended more time and energy opposing Trump than they have ever done opposing the Democrats and that so-called conservatives have managed , over the last 30 years, to conserve little or nothing.
He says he’s on the side of European civilisation and I haven’t seen anything to suggest that he’s not.
Hi Jonathon,
Well I’m sure Vox Day does make the occasional good point; I mean even a blind squirrel is right twice a day. 🙂
And the words in themselves aren’t particular awful, if you want to be charitable that is, I mean everyone wants a good future and to provide for their children. It’s just well . . . the emphasis on white. I mean not all children, just white children. Not black, or Jewish, or the not-our-definition-of-white children . . . I just can’t help but hear the stomp of jackboots.
But maybe that’s just me.
However, the people who spoke them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(white_supremacist_group) Well, they were absolutely awful.
I don’t think it’s just you.
But I do think it’s you and unfortunate company; the SPLC denouncing White Lives Matter as a hate group while praising Black Lives Matter to the skies; the presstitutes demanding Trump disavow his endorsement by the Klan, now disavow it again, disavow it LOUDER I DIDN’T HEAR YOU while Clinton skates on being endorsed by the Communists; et cetera.
Hi Microbillionaire,
So I can’t think that Vox Day’s a twerp because some people, whom I also happen to think are twerps, also think he’s a twerp?
That’s “interesting”
Yes I agree that it is tiresome that Trump (IMHO a buffoon) is continually rapped in the nuts for the sort of things that Hilary (IMHO a weasel) gets a free-pass on.
But.
VD’s sixteen point manifesto of the alt-right http://archive.is/GFlAK With it’s emphasis on genetic purity (never mind the anti-free trade retoric) to me anyway, comes across as seriously creepy. Okay it tries to sugar coat it with a couple of points, but a sugar-coating does not change the basic contents.
And the basic contents are just white supremacist twaddle.
That’s not what I said.
Well then Microbillionaire . . . so what did you say?
The only people hearing the stomp of jackboots in the phrase “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” are me and some people I’d prefer not to keep company with? Everyone else hears . . . something else? Is that what you said?
But please feel free to clarify. Or not. According to your choice. 🙂
I don’t know what everyone else hears. But if you do go that route of hearing jackboots from Vox Day because his words are similar to those of The Order, then the same logic implies that I should be hearing jackboots from you because your words are similar to those of BLM.
So do you want to play guilt-by-perceived-association or not?
Hi Microbillionaire,
Since we both (strange, but true) agree that BLM are, charitably well-intentioned but ill-focused, or less-charitably, ill-intentioned twerps, but eitherway people we’d both rather not be associated with, that point is irrelevant.
The debate is whether VD with his sixteen points of genetic purity, warped rejection of equality, belief that democracy is “unscientific” and unintentionally(?) borrowing jackboot stomping creeds from ultra-creepy white-supremacist groups . . . well, anyway, the debate is whether VD is a twerp or not.
From the evidence available I have drawn my conclusions.
Today, of course, one might say the contract is rewritten and there’s no such obligation. But that raises the question of just what is there to marriage today, with its ongoing redefinition down to “love” …
Breaking my own record of late additions to threads here – but yes I think this over and over again: marriage was (for a while) a religious event where a man and woman made promises to each other before their families, friends and before God (as they saw it). The idea was that they were definitely in for the long haul – and they’d be looking after any progeny they might get.
This happened with certain understandings of obligations and I don’t think we can pretend that there wasn’t an expectation that the couple were expected to …er couple. Marriage wasn’t anywhere near 21st century notions of “well they ‘love’ each other so let them have a nice ceremony (until they get sick of each other in 4 years or after 2 kids)”
The “contract has been changed” alright – I don’t think anyone knows what it is any more.. Anyway superb comment.