The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. — Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber Manifesto
The only Twitter I ever read is Richard Spencer’s, because his is the only Twitter handle I can remember after Mike Enoch got banned. I was only on Twitter for maybe a year until I was banned, and I just can’t be bothered to get another burner phone to “re-spawn” as the kids say these days.
So anyway on Twitter there is a “funny” video of some crazy white woman driving her car and shrieking about Ginsberg dying. They are making “memes” about it and one “progressive” type posted a picture of his Ruth Bader Ginsberg action figure.
Look, folks, only Hipster will give you this perspective. Your first inclination is to make a joke, right? An adult man, with action figures, and not even of something retro-cool like Luke Skywalker, but of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Social Justice Warriors, am I right?
But you’re missing the significance here. When you think of an adult man, and his toys – an American man – what do you think?
Well, you think a boat, or a fully restored 1960’s Jaguar. Or even a plane! I knew a guy that owned a ancient twin propeller plane that still worked – he still flew it. Or these days, if you want to be modern, maybe something robotic, maybe a drone.
But what kind of adult man collects action figures – and action figures of a Jewess Supreme Court Justice?
I’ll tell you: the kind of man that can’t afford adult toys.
This is an economic issue.
A commenter linked to the podcast What’s Left which are four former “Bernie bros” asking themselves the question, what is the “left” these days? There are four people on What’s Left, an Irish woman named Angela Nagle, a half-African, half-Swedish man named Malcolm Kyeyune, and the two co-hosts, a Pittsburgh writer, Oliver Bateman, and Aimee Terese, a half-Lebanese Australian.
All four are Marxists, but not in the sense of “followers of the Communist ideology,” but instead people who use the Marxist analysis of class to try to understand the world.
These are old-school Marxists. They consider themselves to be “post-left” – they refer to modern leftists as “leftoids” – and they hate “social justice warriors” and anti-whites more than we do. In fact, Aimee Terese is so pro-white she was profiled at Amren.com in Aimee Terese: Contrarian, Marxist — White Advocate?
After listening to hours and hours of their podcast, my impression is that these people are quite serious about their materialist, Marxist analysis of class.
I’m no expert on Marx and Marxism, but the basic point of Marxism is that there are classes and that these classes can be defined by their relationship to the means of production.
For Marx, capitalism was the phase after feudalism. Under feudalism, there was an aristocracy. The aristocracy were the descendants of, essentially, warlords. The top warlord became a king, his lieutenants became various dukes and earls, and their wealth came from their landholdings. Before the Industrial Revolution, wealth came from “the land” in the form of food; agricultural produce, and also various products of metal-working that yielded agricultural tools and weapons.
But of course kings and earls weren’t going to actually do any farming themselves. Instead, they had serfs. Typically the literature about serfdom say they were “tied to the land” which is a euphemism for “serfs were basically chattel slaves, but had some basic human rights granted to them by the Church and Christiandom.”
As the Industrial Revolution, well, revolutionized Europe, there emerged classes in the Marxist sense. The class that owned the factories were the bourgeois and the class that worked in the factories were the proletariat.
The proletariat were, in many ways, worse off than serfs. The serfs were slaves, but they had some basic rights due to Christian culture, and pastoral life wasn’t all that bad – at least you got to be outside, engage in healthy physical labor, and you were more-or-less free to live your life in tune with the natural cycles. You just had to do some amount of work for your “lord” – basically, taxes – and while you couldn’t own land, per se, by being “tied to the land” you really couldn’t be evicted. If you were injured, you’d be taken care of by your family, the Church, and your fellow serfs.
But as Industrialization happened, the material conditions changed. Now, the serfs were moved to urban areas, where they worked in mines and factories. No longer a healthy, natural life of pastoralism, the serfs were now a proletariat – proles – living in squalid and unhealthy conditions, dying early of Black Lung.
Little children working on a farm isn’t a bad life, but little children working in a factory is child abuse. The new proles owned nothing, as they were serfs, but their living conditions were far worse than serfs because they were crowded into urban areas working in factories and mines.
Marx believed that, eventually, the proles that worked in the factories would revolt and “seize the means of production” – those factories and mines – and come to own them collectively, perhaps electing their own managers.
King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
Now I know what you’re thinking: OK, Hipster, economic materialism is interesting and all, but what does this have to do with shaving your balls to get chicks?
I was just getting to that. I’ve never read Michel Houellebecq, but I seem to remember something about two of his characters trying to figure out the age old question, “what do women want?” Their answer was that women want a man with a smoothly shaved scrotum.
Of course, these characters were wrong. When women are fantasizing about their ideal man, the hairiness of his ball sack is not even on the list. I’m not claiming to be some great Romeo, some “Alpha Male” with the secrets of picking up chicks, but I know enough to know that women do not care, at all, about the amount of hair on a man’s scrotum.
But you would never know that if you read the Twitter feed of MEL Magazine, apparently the ultimate source of the Twitter post of the man with the Ruth Bader Ginsberg action figure.
MEL Magazine is purportedly a “men’s magazine” – in 2020, “magazine” means “internet blog” – that is owned by the Dollar Shave Club, which is a company founded by two Jewish men in California that sells mail-order “men’s grooming products.”
I clicked on some links, and in an article titled What It’s Like to Be the Son of a MILF, I became triggered.
In this article, a man named Eric Garrison, who is a “sex counselor and forensic sexologist” – which is, I can assure you, not a real job, but a grift – said that having a “MILF” for a mother:
… can also make these sons more progressive sexual partners later on, because they learn early in life that women are more than just sexual objects. “For them, they’ve taken the MILF to MILD, a Mother I’d Like to Date, or get to know on a deeper level,” he continues.
I can assure you that if any women are reading this, the very second the phrase “more progressive sexual partner” was processed by their brain, a complex neurological signal immediately shot through their nervous system and initiated a complex biochemical reaction that turned their vagina drier than the Saraha desert.
Now, I kind of like Jimmy Dore. Dore was once a co-host of the “progressive” Youtube channel The Young Turks, and would be a garden variety “progressive” shitlib, except he’s actually anti-war, is a principled “progressive” as opposed to a partisan shill – a Bernie-bro, he refused to vote for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and even attacks Sanders for “selling out” – and is attacked by the Zionist Wikipedia as a “conspiracy theorist.”
An article published in CNN described Dore’s show as “a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes”. Dore responded by saying of his show that, “We actually debunk conspiracy theories like the one that says Assad gassed his own people.”
In May 2017, Dore discussed conspiracy theories over the murder of Seth Rich and questioned statements by law enforcement and Rich’s family. Dore cited a retracted Fox News story to substantiate his claims, and continued to insist that there were “a lot of red flags” and there “is probably something more to this story” including after the Fox News retraction.
Dore has also expressed his belief in conspiracy theories around the 9/11 Terror Attacks, saying “I don’t know what happened. I know what didn’t happen. What didn’t happen is what the government said happened.”
But on a recent show, titled “Jimmy Dore Discovers the meaning of life”, he goes into a bizarre tirade about how he’s “not gay” because of some complex Jungian psychology. He says that he once found a male actor really handsome, and he mentioned to his friend how good looking the guy was, but he’s totally “not gay” and his friend said, “that’s ok, I think Brad Pitt is beautiful” to which Jimmy replied that he wasn’t into blonds.
Dore said that if he had suppressed his attraction to this man, this would have made him gay, because of the “shadow self” (that Jungian stuff, apparently) and that is why he is not “homophobic” – like blue collar men are.
You see, Jimmy Dore, the “progressive” Californian, college educated, and while not at all rich, doesn’t engage in physical labor (soft hands) is actually less gay than those “blue collar guys” that can’t admit when a man is handsome because they are so terrified of their gay “shadow self.”
Because, as all college educated men with white collar jobs know, those hard working blue collar men never comment on another man’s appearance, and are so absolutely terrified of homosexuality they never even tell gay jokes.
He then interviewed the Jewess “New Age” charlatan Marianne Williamson for nearly an hour, and that was about all I can take. Dore actually went on to explain how “enlightened” and “unselfish” he was because when he has a guest at his home, he actually enjoys doing things for his guests and it in fact makes him happy to make his guests happy. That “serving” someone, that showing “love” to his friends, actually makes him feel good.
If you are thinking, “wow, Jimmy Dore sounds like an eight year old boy that gained a bit of self-awareness from his Sunday School teacher” you would be right. But, as this writer has pointed out previously, the post-Christian culture has spawned two generations of culture-less, uneducated, and utterly un-self-aware narcissists with absolutely zero understanding of human nature.
As mentioned previously, the feminist scholar Camille Paglia once pointed out that it’s easier to teach Christian kids the cultural history of art than the secular kids, because at least the Christian kids have the Bible, thus have some sort of narrative that spans the entire history of human culture. A Christian child that has grown up with the Bible actually has some notion of the development of human culture throughout the centuries.
It would be different if the secular kids were taught Homer and the Roman classics – I suggest Seneca the Younger – but they aren’t. Their only history is the Jew Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” which is quite literally hate literature inspired by Zinn’s cult of Judaism. Reading a history of the American people written by Howard Zinn is like reading a history of the Jews written by Julius Streicher, or learning about psychiatry from someone raised in Scientology.
Aimee Terese, of the What’s Left podcast, got to the heart of what is going on with people like Jimmy Dore, and the post-Bernie-bro, “Democratic Socialists of America” left.
All these “progressives” claim they are on the side of the “working class” but they will do anything and everything to not get an honest job working next to actual working people like, say, at the grocery store.
Terese points out that many of these “progressives” would rather starve to death shilling for money on their social media – including selling naked pictures on OnlyFans.com – than get an honest job working shoulder-to-shoulder with an actual working class person that may not have perfectly “politically correct” opinions about transgenderism.
As this writer, and many others, have pointed out, these “progressive” opinions are a form of Veblen good. Sure, they may live in a shitty apartment, wear thrift-store clothes, take the bus, and live two Paypal social media payments from homelessness, but at least they know what the term “cisgender” means.
And since they know what the term “cisgender” means, that proves they are, in fact, NOT just a barista, but a “salt” secretly working at the coffeeshop to unionize it!
Terese also points out that the “Democratic Socialists” that actually do have trust-funds – the typical DSA member is far, far richer than the average American – always talk about “Single Payer Health Care” not because it would benefit the working poor – the working poor already have Medicaid – but because it will help Social Media grifters.
Patreon, OnlyFans, and Uber do not have a health care plan, after all.
Is the connection clear? Why would Jimmy Dore, otherwise a seemingly decent guy, feel the need to accuse “blue collar men” of “homophobia” and explain how he’s much more “woke” than the working class because he’s “not afraid” to say Brad Pitt is good looking? Why would Jimmy Dore find a Sunday School lesson about selflessness and hospitality so profound, when everyone else learned these lessons in grade school?
Why would a progressive white woman rather sell naked pictures on OnlyFans than get a real job at the hair salon with all the other ladies?
Aimee Terese explains it: these people are terrified of being proletarianized.
White collar, intellectual work is increasingly being proletarianized due to computer technology and especially artificial intelligence. “Internet journalism” has never been a high-status occupation, but it used to pay a living wage back when Salon.com started in the late 1990’s. Now, it’s part of the “gig economy” and writing “SJW” blog posts is increasingly being done by artificial intelligence.
Thanks to the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age, no one starves anymore. Even 100 years ago, most people worked in agriculture growing food. Now, less than 5% of the population works in agriculture, but farming feeds more people than ever.
Factory work stepped into the breach. But then industry became ultra-efficient. When they started outsourcing industry to China and the third world in the 1980’s, they told everyone they would be retrained to become “information workers” in the “service economy.”
But those industries are also being automated. Craigslist destroyed the local newspapers with their classified ads, and Google has simply steamrolled over everything leftover with their ad network.
Now, you can sell your products on Amazon.com, until the Amazon.com AI figures out your business, and Amazon starts a competing business and undercuts your prices by 5%. What did Jeff Bezos says? “Your margin is my opportunity.”
Profit, in the capitalist sense, is inefficiency.
Back in the day, a fashionable idea was the “zero profit company.” After all, what is “profit” in the capitalist sense?
“Profit” is NOT your wage. The CEO who makes a million dollars is technically speaking just a wage worker. The “profit” in the capitalist sense is just rent-seeking and usury. A well run company would have zero fat and zero profit margins. That is perfectly efficient capitalism.
Capitalism without capitalists.
In feudal times, the aristocracy had a form of legitimacy because of their violence – they performed a real function. They were warriors, that killed other warriors, and any serfs that refused to get with the program. They often had to defend their own serfs from other aristocrats.
When the aristocracy became degenerate due to long periods of peace, well, revolution was in the air. After all, if the serfs are working the land and actually producing the food, why have a “lord” anyway? Why not keep the “tax” for yourselves? The “lord” says he owns the land, because his great-great grandfather conquered it. But the current “lord” in the powdered wig and frilly clothes isn’t conquering anything, and a gentleman’s fencing match isn’t real warfare.
So who says he “owns” the land? The Bible says if you don’t work, you don’t eat – and the Gentleman Aristocrats aren’t doing any real work, so who needs them?
Economics is the science and/or art of dealing with scarcity. But what happens in a high-tech economy when the basics of life – food, water, clothing, medicine – are produced via highly-efficient technology?
Are we in a post-scarcity era?
In some ways, yes. But some things really are zero-sum – some things are scarce by nature.
And the most “zero-sum” good in human society is, of course, status. Social status. Social status is, by nature, scarce and zero-sum.
In the 1890’s, my great-grandfather could attract a wife because he had a farm and could feed her and their children. My great-grandmother was also fully aware that she wasn’t the only attractive, fertile woman in town, so if her standards were “too high” for my great-grandfather, he might just find another woman and she could wind up an aging spinster.
But what does a man do when a woman can feed herself, and don’t need no man to take care of her and her children?
Well, he starts competing in a new way, and starts thinking, huh, maybe if I buy expensive grooming products from the Dollar Shave Club, and literally shave the hair off my scrotum, that will make me sexier to women and I can get a woman, maybe a couple.
Believe it or not, Marx’ ideas of the alienation of labor from its production explained all this quite well one hundred years ago. But thanks to the Cold War against the Soviet Union, “right-wing” Americans are terrified of Marx and his ideas, which “just happens” to be quite convenient for the American ruling class which pretends to be “free market capitalists.”
This writer suggests that the right-wingers are utterly and totally wrong, and that “crass materialism” – at least if “materialism” can include social status – can explain things better than romantic “traditionalism.”
The “Alt Right” – or the “dissident right” – claimed to believe in the biological reality of race and sex, which means that race and sex are material, and if “society is a racial (biological) construct,” than social status itself is based in biology.
So, let’s take this idea of “social status” seriously.
A commenter from Reddit makes a very good point about the current reality in the United States, year 2020:
Rational arguments simply don’t fucking work amongst normies. You know what does work? Social clout. Humans by and large are simply not evolutionarily wired to be persuaded by logic when it goes against social status. That’s part of how we’ve wound up in Clown World 2020TM is the leftist insanity has captured the socially fashionable high ground, as we all know. And therefore all our midwit groupthinking millenial faggot peers can go around year after year with their heads up their asses, and not batting an eye towards their preconceived “correct” opinions and voting habits when the force of consequences arrives at their front door. …
Therefore the entirety of the situation should serve as motivation to become their superiors, so that our correctness has more persuasive effect. Nothing is so fucking offensive to my sensibilities than people who are so wrong being perceived as right, simply because they hold social prestige, and the illusion that creates in a social setting/discourse. In a sense this ressentiment is just a hypothetical motivational mantra, but even if it never results in some meaningful social power shift, it sure is enough to light a fire under my ass week after week.
You’ve answered a question I’ve had for a long time. I always wondered how these colleges/media could convince so many white people to hate themselves. I was never really convinced it was the “social clout” and trendiness that made these people think the way they do because I guess I just didn’t want to accept it. There’s really no other answer I can think of to let yourself become so blind and go against common sense then to just want to be accepted into the “cool” group.
Of course, Dr Kevin MacDonald has been making this very point for a decade, that “leftist” and anti-white control over prestigious institutions is perhaps the major factor in the anti-white zeitgeist.
The NRx blogger Jim Donald made a point recently that violence is “high status” – or at least, getting away with violence is high status. After all, that is what made the aristocrats of the feudal era high status – they simply killed their competition.
But of course White Americans in 2020 can’t be violent – we will be killed by the state – in 2020 America, only non-Whites and leftists are allowed to be violent.
But is there some other way we can grab the status system for ourselves?
This writer suggests that we can, and it’s utterly obviously how – and we don’t even need to shave our balls to do it.
If the “dissident right” believes that biology is real, then it follows that social status is itself based on certain material reality.
What is that material reality?