Thursday, February 23, 2017

Discussions of Milo and Jessa Crispin on Facebook


Many liberals were like Bill Maher and wanted Milo gone because they were watching themselves craving to make him mainstream, and had to disown this fact to keep their equilibrium. They weren't ready, so he's locked away to keep them from seeing more of a powerful part of themselves they can only now condemn. So now we go through this period where we find out how many of the left were pro-pedophilia (Bill Maher himself, for instance; Salon.com published pro-pedophilia materials; many liberal anthropologists, noting the amount of adult-child sex in the tribes they study, have been pro-pedophilia for years, and it goes on and on, principally because it's something the Right could be imagined as having no sympathy with for it being outside their very limited understanding of what constitutes acceptable sexual pairings), and where it is becoming respectable for members of the left to pretty much sound like MRA in denouncing the Lena Dunhams and Hillary Clintons of the world (Jessa Crispin in her new book, for instance -- she even likes nationalism over cosmopolitanism, apparently), as well as "special snowflakes," "trigger warnings, "safe spaces," etc: anything upper-echelon progressive. And then when this is just all out and everyone's accommodated to a sort of sullen, "everyone's full of shit" point of view, many on the left will welcome Milo back into the mainstream because he's useful for setting detonations in place they can claim no association with, just enjoy the repercussions. You don't think Bill Maher wanted Milo on his show to accelerate the advancement of hate speech and the discrediting of protections against society's most vulnerable. He did. And Bill Maher is mentally better off than at least half of Americans; he's never been drawn to be a member of the Right.
LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Patrick McEvoy-Halston If there wasn't an aspect about him that touches on something truly insufferable about our time, I don't think Maher would have compared him to Christopher Hitchens. I've heard Milo talk about free speech, and it isn't just about enlarging the number of people people can prey on... there is in it, in however small a portion, some recognition that we're living in a time where free speech often isn't permitted simply because a lot of us are having tough enough a time keeping our mental shit together, that we cannot allow ourselves to be living in a time of free-wheeling ideas: we cannot permit a 1960s. And thus the number of liberals -- including, for example, the New Yorker's Richard Brody and "Excellent Sheep's" William Deresiewicz -- who've called other liberals insufferable, for so preferring a sort of liberal society where anything divergent never gets a chance to surface: a discourse of "fake news" and "troll culture" got created, not just to keep a stern eye on societal degenerates but to keep everyone else stifled in their degree of experimentation so to look the type to maybe be considered exempt from judgment. Milo has said that he's the new punk, that the fun is with him. I don't think that not denying that there is some truth in this distracts from the ultimate truth that his lure of, in a certain degree, genuine freedom, is nevertheless music accompanying a harrowing ride into hell. He is an agent of fascism. He is a victim of child abuse whom we hope recovers even better than he has. The world is complex, demanding a sophisticated outlook.
LikeReply10 hrsEdited
- - - - -
Jessa Crispin just wrote a book -- "Why I'm not a feminist" -- where she argues that current feminists are narcissists who are projecting everything they don't like about themselves into "shit containers" -- i.e., men. She's got favourable pedigree, however, and just got a very respectful write-up in the New Yorker. Her argument fits in with all those on the left decrying "identity liberalism" right now, and for the life of me I can't see a difference between them and Milo. They all seem foremost interested in taking down the Hillary Clintons and Lena Dunhams of the world. Anyone "spoiled." They're all going to leave us with some version of a country, headed by a "strong man," with everyone on the lookout for anyone "uppity." They all WANT a 1984.
- - - - -
The left was more interesting in the 1960s. It was more empowering to be progressive in the 1960s. The last 30 yrs have been about narrowing how much we allow all that's out there to change us, as we keep solid our own somewhat fragile emotional equilibrium. Thus our credential society -- unlike the 1960s/70s, you'll only get a listen if you hold degrees from the right places, are properly credentialed, and to possess that you have to be someone who knew how play to prof's preferences, or someone who never really held a thought that diverged from aggregate preferences. And the tactical mind and the somnambulist one, is a big direction away from the unconcerned, freely exploring one -- the "free speech" liberated one, that Milo, while no where near the same breed, DOES draw forth remembrances of. The result is that we encounter daily news that holds some truth, but which we know cannot become an avenue for exciting investigation because some aspect of it might destabilize some extra-psychic "girder" out there that must remain the same lest its unsettling result in an unleashing of psychic tumult. So we do, yes, live in an age a subsequent one will probably dismiss as too much under the thumb of tut-tutters, like the 1920s generation dismissed the pre-war times, the pre-war left, as still beholden to the Victorian matriarch, and uninteresting for it. This however is our lot. It sucks, but it's out lot. There is no one there -- or no large group/movement -- that argues against political correctness, that I find immune to a deeper instinct to set up certain groups of people as dispensable. I sense how it will materialize 5 steps down the line: an argument for denying all sympathy and for quarantines. I find this just as much with liberal Richard Dawkins as I do with conservative Milo as I do with Jezebel editor Jessica Crispin. I wish it were otherwise. As Jessica Crispin argues, the New Yorker these days IS a bit dental office. So too Paris Review. You know absolutely coming in what you're going to get -- essentially about shoring up assumptions people already had and need, while convinced its blazing new trails; thereby making "hot shots" seem like absurditiies.
If we write and do, to keep faith with what is best in ourselves, we may have to do it for a people ten years' ahead. The left now will view you suspiciously, while the right will sense insufficient intrinsic hate. Ten years from now they'll get you, and hopefully require you.
Milo Yiannopoulos is holding a press event in New York City today, where he will address the fallout from his recent controversy concerning his remarks about
MEDIAITE.COM
- - - - -
The way the Milo thing is going to pan out is by expanding discussion of Left support for pedophilia (the Left isn't actually FOR pedophilia, of course; it's against bigotry and sadistic treatment of people in general. But in pursuit of this it has counted amongst themselves people of very averse dispositions. See pro-pedophilia articles in such magazines as Salon.com for example.). When the climate is switching to one where a populace wants to war against its most "spoiled" citizens -- i.e., progressives -- everything brought into public discussion and acknowledged as a unambiguous, truth-revealing weapon that cuts through all deception to reveal one's essential evil core, gets quickly re-directed so that it's a weapon against them, the liberal class. The only thing that matters here is that the Left is pointing at something that counts as absolute proof against a cause. The only thing that matters here is that all sides have decided that a holy sword of truth exists, that turns away all ambiguity. It's a way of thinking that properly belongs with the Right, in the way that pro-Life can only mean to those of this movement, blood-craving parents thirsting on the death of their unborn children. You don't think Bill Maher is going to turn this thing around so that it points mostly at Muslims? He will. I hope the Left is expecting this. Right now however I see them on my twitter feed celebrating the glory of their absolute victory over Milo. They should be wise and know that in this climate, with "your" influenced receding, "you're" not now going to be able to confine child rape as an issue concerning only the Catholic faith. And if you can hate Catholics for what they're doing, encourage it even, then surely you can hate...

- - - - -

This paragraph comes very close to DeMausian psychohistory (my interest), and it's wonderful to see it appear for consideration in such a well-read magazine (frankly, it makes what's being discussed at official psychohistory sites seem timid in comparison). My disagreement, other than the central one that her targets here are not being accurately described but are subject to the same projection -- from her -- that she discusses/lambasts in the article, is that nationalism doesn't come as an answer to self-doubt, it comes as an answer to self-recrimination: if you feel spoiled, and about to be punished for it, you cling back to a parental country, to ancestors, defensively, so to not feel worthy of attack. It's not about joining something larger, something "great," and so feel less puny and useless, because what causes people to become nationalists isn't their feeling small but their feeling self-actualized: actually kinda big, in a not-permitted kind of way. This is why it is not just the poor who become nationalists but the thriving... being a Trump-voter was not synonymous with being poor. 
: Part of this is simple projection. All the aspects of yourself that you are ashamed of or fear that you possess (weakness, anger, irrationality) can be easily forgotten if you assign those traits to someone you are not. If you strongly identify as one thing, your opposite can be not only a scapegoat, but a shit storehouse. Anything you’d like to distance yourself from can simply be stored in the identity of your opposite. “This group over here is ___________ [enter whatever disgusting thing you can’t bear to see inside of yourself]. I belong to the group that is the opposite of this, and so therefore I possess the opposite qualities.”
This is meant to convince both yourself and your audience of your value. When someone has a gap in their sense of self, or in their sense of the value of themselves, that gap can be filled with the sense of the group with which they identify. Nationalism tends to strengthen during times of struggle. Individuals fall on hard times, they find themselves suffering from unemployment or poverty or displacement, which causes self-doubt. People erase that self-doubt, or at least cover it up, by suddenly proclaiming participation in a larger project, the project of a nation. Their nation is great, their nation has a tremendous history, and so they are allowed to participate in that greatness, to possess it, to play a part in that tremendous history.
How contemporary feminism has lost its way.
NYMAG.COM
- - - -
The error in this article is that one can also use other people as shit-containers for YOUR OWN NARCISSISM, your own guilt-inducing sense of being special, of being happy, successful, not just for your own powerlessness, destructiveness, etc. This is what Jess Crispin is doing, I think. She is feeling what is called "growth panic" for her own success, and so disowns it by projecting it onto her peers and THEY become the ones who are bad for being so attendant to themselves, while she feels emptied of the "crime."
How contemporary feminism has lost its way.
NYMAG.COM

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Concerning "Lord of the Rings"...

Concerning "Lord of the Rings":

If you doubt Galadriel, Queen of Elves, then it reflects only your own evil, so says Aragorn.

How quickly did we pass this one over when we first read it... this homage to keeping someone immune to critical scrutiny, this making of her into Kim Jong-on?
- - - - -
Saruman has always been jealous of Gandalf.

Really? Saruman is the head of the council, the innovator, the only one in Middle-earth who doesn't not want the old ways to always dwarf the efforts of the new, and he's the one who's jealous? Gandalf IS favoured by Galadriel, and always has been, and though this surely means a lot to Gandalf, it may not actually mean much to Saruman if he's passed on from finding much pleasure in being so obedient of old rules principally because it makes you mom's favourite, towards finding pleasure in accomplishing his own goals. When Gandalf lists all the ways in which Saruman has not ACTUALLY accomplished all that he seems to have, how it's all in truth a copy of someone else, doesn't he seem here a bit someone who is speaking in jealousy of another's accomplishments? Isn't this behaviour we would expect of someone suffering from envy?
- - - - -
"Faithful heart may have forward tongue." So says Eomar to Theoden.

How deeply is this lesson manifested in the text? Who has a more forward tongue than Wormtongue, Sauron's Messenger, and Saruman, and who are they but those who must cease their slippery, snakish dialogues by nothing better than a quick fist to the face? What is this but an attempt to make it seem like you've owned every possible criticism of you -- like that you generally make it impossible to criticize people because the very act of criticism defines you as the one critical attention must actually be put to -- i.e., Aragorn's crime.
- - - - -
Gandalf has Merry and Pippin along on his trail as sidesaddle.
Saruman the wanderer has Wormtongue on his trail as sidesaddle.

What is this matching but to communicate that should Merry and Pippin go further along on their tendency to be disobedient, they're due not to be those who can still learn their lessons via suffering "burned hands" but those who can be kicked viciously about by a grumpy, intimidating master, they'll still find themselves needing to cling to? Wormtongue, his fate -- miserable, endlessly picked on, humiliated -- is the abject lesson everyone else intuits from, that keeps them from rebelling against ancient authorities and striking out on their own.
- - - - -
Bilbo lives a great life, but is to some extent pressured the whole way by relatives and kinsmen who think there is something unnatural about his wealth and immunity to aging. His ample gift-giving helps -- especially that of his troll-treasure, which he gives away entirely for it not really being his but stuff belonging to other travellers --but he's holding onto things -- the text even admits -- much longer than he should, without earning RIGHTEOUS retribution.

Frodo gets none of this. He's barely got his inheritance before he forsakes it to Bilbo's most pressing relative, Lobelia. He goes out adventuring and gets stabbed by a wraith, buried in with undead ghouls, is grabbed at lustily by a great warrior who looms over him, is molested by Orcs, and withers into a faint shell that must be carried around by his servant. Afterwards, he can barely celebrate victory with his comrades for being so drained, and is lost quickly enough to Middle-earth entire. He has, in short, this adopted son of Bilbo, exactly none of the good fun Bilbo had, even though there are times where he comes across in quite excellent stature -- i.e., the way he engages with Galadriel, Gollum, and Faramir.

This is what but the sacrifice of young for elders' accruing guilt-inspiring wealth and prosperity? The text hardly proves true in really lamenting when a son dies before father... it encourages it so much it seems the whole point of the book: because Bilbo had actual fun with a dragon and got buckets of treasure to boot, Frodo has to know only the fire.
- - - - -
Galadriel and Gandalf become by the end absolutely outside others' rightful questioning. But isn't there something a bit guilty about Galadriel's being identified -- almost caught out -- as still being in possession of a ring of power herself? The text plays out a bit as if someone had caught site of it and allowed itself to register THAT, but otherwise strove to seem as loyal to her as possible so to not be caught out in this register of suspicion: hence, the subsequent plot development of Gimli declaring life-long fidelity to her. By Return of the King we're long passed doubting Gandalf -- he's right about everything. But somewhere ensconced in this reign of absolute fidelity to him, he himself registers that Merry's aid in the defeat of the Nazgul King proved that he was right to have resisted Elrond and insisted Merry and Pippin be the final members of the Fellowship, something he had actually been doubting. Somehow the text has served to make "doubt" something he himself could own up to but which we've long been dissuaded from. It's made us the very opposite of those who'd ever speak forward tongue against him, but only those who can be shown up and shamed, put back in place -- if need be -- for being so ready to agree we couldn't offer requisite unflattering feedback even if such was absolutely called for.
- - - - -
The text is everywhere forwarning against taking the easy way.

If you take an easy way, is it because you'll be caught out more quickly or because that way you won't be able to display bravado in face of fears, accumulate as many scars that show how much you'd born upon yourself? Bilbo still lived at a time where the best way to be was to come out of adventures and seem happy as can be: absolutely ready to lounge and enjoy oneself. Sam, Merry and Pippin at a time when the best way to return is where there's always a glint of steel to be found in your eyes, and that you never quite forget amidst all the golden days returned that Orcs once tortured you and that evil will never be quite quit from the world.