Majorityrights News > Category: Social Sciences

The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution.

by Eric Kauffmann for Quillette.com 22 June 2020:
       

Statues toppled, buildings renamed, curricula “decolonized,” staff fired. The protests following George Floyd’s killing have emboldened cultural revolutionaries in America and Europe. The iconoclasts are changing minds, and could be in a position to enact a root-and-branch reconstruction of America into something completely unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants. Imagine a country whose collective memory has been upended, with a new constitution, anthem, and flag, its name changed from the sinful “America” to something less tainted. Far-fetched? Not according to data I have collected on what liberal white Americans actually believe. Only a renewed American cultural nationalism can resist it.

According to multiple surveys, the effect of the riots which occurred at around the same time as the BLM protests is quite different from what occurred with previous waves of rioting. First, many of the participants in the major riots were white. Second, there has been no clear call for Nixonian law and order following the riots, but rather greater public acceptance of the BLM movement’s unsupported claims that contemporary structural racism explains why police shoot unarmed black men or violent crime plagues inner-city neighbourhoods. While 57 percent of Americans disagree with the protestors’ radical slogan, “defund the police,” an astounding 29 percent support it. This is so despite the deaths of a number of black people during the riots and the fact the riots have coincided with a steep rise in the number of black homicide deaths in inner-city neighbourhoods due to a “Ferguson Effect” of police reducing their presence in these areas.

Meanwhile Trump is polling well down after the riots, having dropped 2.5 points to Biden since Floyd’s death on May 25th. Trump’s repeated mistruths, unstatesmanlike behaviour and nepotistic employment of family members may have eroded the truth-based environment to such an extent that evidence-free shifts in issue position become increasingly easy. His sinking popularity tarnishes issue positions associated with his presidency, even when they are backed by the weight of evidence—as with the idea that indiscriminate police brutality rather than racism accounts for violence against unarmed blacks. The power of corporate and celebrity endorsement, magnified by “trendy” social media herding, has resulted in unusually high approval among whites for the activities of the rioters. This is an important departure from what occurred during, for example, the late 60s race riots, 1992 Rodney King riots, or even the 2014 Ferguson riots.

Statues, memory, and the social construction of harm

Progressive scholars are fond of emphasizing the socially-constructed nature of perceived reality. This is overstated, of course. Human minds are not blank slates. Gender can’t be readily reconstructed to make males dominate the caring professions and females the majority of ditch-diggers. Similarly, Americans can’t easily be convinced they are actually Russians.

But you don’t need to follow social construction to its postmodernist extreme to acknowledge that social construction does play a role in how we perceive the world. To a partial extent, there really is a “social construction of reality,” as Berger and Luckmann put it. Psychological research, for example, shows that flagging certain issues repeatedly, or framing them in particular ways, affects attitudes and feelings.

Let me interject here to make a correction in Kaufmann’s assessment of the abuse of social constructionism. The agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated [and I am sure that “progressive scholars” like to do that], but this would be an abuse of social constructionism indeed. As I like to emphasize, there are three important aspects to proper deployment of social constructionism: 1) The more literal, for example, as in people constructing a building together. 2) The metaphoric, for example, “a couple and a village socially constructing a child together”...or the social (re)construction of the narrative of a people’s history and 3) Post Hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count - e.g., fact, ‘my cousin was hit by lightning and killed’ but now there is a negotiation (social construction) as to whether the lightning strike was an act of god or triggered by events of physics; whether he has gone to heaven or is now just worm food, up for beatification or a good riddance, etc. ...is there something to be done to prevent lightning strikes or not?

...and poignantly, the fact of immigration, to be treated like a force of nature, a flow (as our enemies might like us to passively accept it), something that just happens? or rather an egregious social policy instantiated by hostile and irresponsible elites?

For Kaufmann to say that “social constructionism is overstated” is not accurate then. He might say with accuracy, that the agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated where it might attempt to say that it can make just whatever it likes of brute facts. But then that is neither particularly social nor anti-Cartesian indeed, but rather solipsistic, violating the corrective raison d’être of social constructionism and its means to harness social accountability.

Besides a red caping for the sake of Jewish interests, to dissuade Whites from this vital instrument (viz. for Whites to organize as a group), I believe much of the abuse of social constructionism has to do with the university being in the big business of selling talk and undergraduates being the paying customers that can be lured into liberal tenured professors’ language games by appealing to them with an “empowering” sense of overstated agency and liberal activism.

That correction at hand, back to Kauffmann

What society chooses to focus on and care about, the emotions it feels, the objects it sacralizes, the boundaries between groups, vary a lot across time and place. For instance, choosing not to shake someone’s hand is offensive in Western culture, but not in Japan, where a bow is the common greeting. Leaving food on one’s plate is treated as an insult in Japan, but not in the West. Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning show that in Western elite culture in 1800, as in violent inner-city neighborhoods today, insults were treated as violence, which can only be avenged by physical violence. But for most of us, who haven’t been inculcated into a touchy honor culture, verbal slights don’t carry the same emotional punch. We either ignore them or respond with a counter-insult. As the sociology of emotions tells us, the way societies and individuals emotionally respond to words is, to an important degree, socially constructed.

The same sensitizing dynamic works for history, literature, film, statues, and even words. Like Red Guards with a hair-trigger sensitivity for sniffing out the bourgeois, today’s [*internationalist left ergo liberal-modernist] offense archaeologists outdo each other in trying to reframe the world as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and so on. Turning the principle of charity on its head, they insist on the most suspicious interpretation of a person’s motives when the subject matter is associated with their canonical totems of race, gender, sexuality. A Hispanic man flicking his fingers outside his truck window gets fired because this was photographed, tweeted, and spun as the “OK” white power sign. The result is an atmosphere where inter-personal trust is as low as humanly possible while discursive power flows to the accuser. The new cultural revolutionaries have constructed our emotional and conceptual reality.

Once “harm”, “racism” and other concepts become unmoored from reality, more of the world is remade. Statues which were long ignored become offensive. Complex historical figures like Jefferson or Churchill, who embodied the prejudices of their time, or elites like Columbus or Ulysses Grant, whose achievements had both positive and negative effects, are viewed through a totalizing Maoist lens which collapses shades of grey into black and white. If a historic personage transgressed [liberal internationalist] left-modernist sacred values, their positives instantly evaporate and activists myopically focus on their transgressions.

Suddenly, an entire Orwellian world opens up: place names, history books, statues, buildings. When you’re equipped with the anti-racist hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. In this brave new world, it doesn’t matter whether a symbol like the Rhodes Scholarship has acquired a completely different meaning, or whether a statue has become a symbol of something completely different. All must be levelled to bring forth utopia.

What has occurred across the West, especially in the English-speaking world, is a steady [liberal internationalist] left-modernist march through the institutions. Beginning in the 1960s, former radicals entered universities and the media, capturing the meaning-producing machines of society. Once boomers became the establishment in the 1990s, the ethos of institutions started to shift. For good and ill, equality and diversity rose up the priority list. As these ideas filtered through Schools of Education and into the K-12 curriculum, older ideas of patriotism faded and the new critical theory perspective began to replace it. Sixty three percent of millennials (aged 22–37) now agree that “America is a racist country,” nearly half say it is “more racist than other countries” and 60 percent that it is a sexist country. Older generations are less radical, but 40–50 percent of boomers and Gen Xers agree with these statements, reflecting the long march of the [Internationalist Marxist] Left through American culture.

The deculturation of America

In order to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided, on May 7th, to ask what I thought were outlandish questions—almost to the point of inflicting a Sokal Squared-style hoax on survey respondents. The answers I received amazed me. I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.

After the preface, “To what extent do you think that the following should be done to address structural barriers to race and gender equality in America,” I presented 16 statements that an amalgamated sample of 870 American respondents could agree or disagree with. The sample is not representative of the American population—I used the Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic survey platforms that thousands of academics use. Respondents on these platforms lean young, liberal, and white. But as this is precisely the group I wished to study, this is not a major limitation. Indeed, I have removed conservatives and centrists to focus only on liberals. Liberals are defined as those who rate themselves as a one “very liberal” or two “liberal” on a five-point scale from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” The liberal sample, consisting of 414 people, was 86 percent white and 53 percent male. Forty percent of liberals identified as “very liberal” and the other 60 percent as just “liberal.”

Responses ranged on a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” I’ve simplified the seven categories into a binary agree-versus-disagree score. Those who scored a four—“neither agree nor disagree”—were dropped from the analysis, permitting me to gauge where the balance of committed opinion lies.

Here is what I asked people to agree or disagree with:

1. Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color.

2. Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people

3. Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population

4. Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color

5. Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people

6. Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color

7. Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved

8. Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities

9. Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them

10. Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people

11. Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past

12. Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population

13. Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America

14. Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population

15. Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people

16. Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people

As I predicted 25 years ago in my book, The New Color Line, white Americans have become second class citizens under the law.

by Paul Craig Roberts

for HAF 6 July 2020:

In the latest racist attack on white people, black women provoked an incident. The pregnant white woman who was threatened and verbally abused by the blacks tried to de-escalate the situation but was not permitted to.

The white woman’s husband was fired from his job at Oakland University. The University believes that standing up for oneself or one’s wife to black abusers is unacceptable behavior.

       
        Jillian and Eric Wuestenberg

The prosecutor, Jessica Cooper, is pandering to and enabling black violence against whites by prosecuting the white victims and not the black perpetrators.

The outcome of “racial justice” is that the pregnant white woman’s husband is now unemployed and both face prosecution and prison sentences without a paycheck for a lawyer.

There will have to be blacks on the jury, and the blacks will demand conviction regardless of innocence. So much for “white privilege.”

It is going to get a lot worse. Ordinary White Americans and their property have been abandoned by the governing class. White Americans are now living The Camp of the Saints.

The Fourth of July is when we hear poppycock about our rights and freedoms. These patriotic speeches no longer apply to white Americans. White Americans have been dispossessed of their rights, their self respect, and their country.

       

You can support Jill & Eric Wuestenberg who are being persecuted by the anti-white prosecutor, Jessica Cooper, by signing this petition and contributing to their legal defense.

You can bet your life that white people will not support the wrongly charged Wuestenbergs to anything close to the extent that they poured money into the hands of Black Lives Matter.

Watch live coverage as Elon Musk’s SpaceX works with NASA to launch the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule with two U.S. astronauts, the first mission of its kind to the International Space Station in nearly a decade.

Contrasts at present are in high relief:

Between the culture that would launch space colonization in response to natural challenges to one which would open our borders and interpersonal bounds to human and pervasive ecological destruction; lock us down and ruin our agentive capacity for independence in defense of our national and interpersonal bounds; coupled by taking another liberal step back from those who would riot, infringing our private boundaries further in violence and destruction; putting the kabash on economic independence as much as possible; while generally making life on earth miserable; obstructing earthly management, hastening the need to colonize outer-space indeed.

For reasons most everyone understands, I have shifted this audio/video to Bitchute.

Editor’s note: this is a work in progress.

I will be adding to it here and in comments below as time goes on.

Red cape: misrepresenting what would be a good idea for Whites so they chase it away and pursue its opposite.

While I will be mostly adding condensed raw material, what we may refer to as “specificatory structures” for further shaping and crafting, “Red Caping” is one of the few more ready-to-go memes

Red caping implies a strategy that I am convinced the YKW deploy, of taking a good idea for social group maintenance, and presenting it in such a way so as to make it offensive to Whites, even on an abstract level - a level on which it can and should be deployed in White defense; but presented as a sheer antagonistic concept, Whites chase after it like a bull to the matador’s red cape; fighting against our own interests.

Easy examples would be “multiculturalism” and “diversity”...

These ideals would seem to imply that Whites can and should maintain their distinction and sovereignty along side other distinct groups in the world - nice idea.

However, the YKW have presented it in such a way, and Whites react accordingly, that it is about doing away with any White difference - and indeed that’s true: “diversity” as they mean it, does mean chasing down the last Whites (and forcing them to interbreed with others or die) and “multiculturalism” red capes what is really monoculturalism - except for the YKW, in their agenda.

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

As Whites chase after the red cape reversal, you’ll hear the naive reacting to Angela Merkel’s statement that “multiculturalism has utterly failed” as if “hey, even she gets it now”, while in effect she is calling for integration; i.e., final stage destruction of our genome.

When Pat Buchanan was running for president back in the 90’s, he referred to “the sewer of multiculturalism”, which he argued should be rejected in favor of every American being required to learn English and encouraged to participate in Christian culture ..again, this is to have chased the YKW red cape into integrationism, our genetic destruction.

As meme’s go, we might picture the Happy Merchant’s head replacing the matador’s head, while on the red cape might be written, say, “multiculturalism.”

On the bull might be written, “White man” saying “it’s a failed idea, what we want is assimilation” ..something like that.

GIF action might work well, revealing integration on the other side of the redcaping.

Now, “Multiculturalism” and “Diversity” aren’t the most ingenious examples of red caping; fairly transparent, though some still seem to be falling for it to an extent (sorry Mark).

There are other, trickier and more important red capes, which I have infamously attempted to explicate to White advocates:

“THE Left” is a red cape that would be a bit harder to have understood, but not impossible, nor impossible to meme; and important to explain and get through to our people.

And the red cape of the whole characterology of “THE” Left, is one about associating anti-Whitism and its “Social Justice Warrior” minions, their vast, antagonistic distortions (inculcated by YKW academics) of the process of conceptualization, working hypotheses that should be correctable, but do not deal with reality, nature, facts, etc., in this strict characterology of THE Left; i.e., associating it with ALL left-type concerns - crucially diverting attention from the legitimacy of unionization of the national ethne, as it would structure social accountability and correctability’s underlying natural fit with ethnonationalism. Thereby misrepresenting that which on an abstract level is a necessary part of any process of sense making and inquiry, including scientific.

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis”
- Alfred North Whitehead

In effect, Whites react into an altercast Right Wing purity spiral beyond or below praxis, its accountability and correctivity - against our capacity to maintain ourselves as a group.

They’ve got Whites conceptually fighting against social justice, against a daft concept of equality (which altercasts our people as despotic, elitist assholes) against our conceptualization as a people, organization and unionization, because race is “not a social construct”, it is only about pure facts (not as if we can breed with other races, and therefore a modicum of social construct is unavoidable); making short shrift if any to accountability and its affordance of coherence, agency and warrant.

I’ve discussed the red caping of “post modernity” and how they’ve got our people chasing against their own interests, will see about condensing other ideas from that article.

But red caping is not the only meme on offer and I will be setting out some other material for meming in a few….

Curt Doolittle’s Propertarian Constitution vs Jim Bowery’s Sortocracy

James Bowery 12 May 2020:

Sortocracy purports to be an upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia.  The Propertarian Constitution purports to be an upgrade to the United States Constitution.  Sortocracy, takes the form of a declaration of the conditions of peace between sovereign nation-states, as did The Peace of Westphalia.  It upgrades the notion of a nation-state as recognized by other nation-states . As such it does not take the place of the of a constitution.  Its philosophical foundation is aligned with that of The Declaration of Independence rather than the US Constitution.

Sortocracy is described at http://sortocracy.org/

The Propertarian Constitution is described at
https://propertarianism.com/revolutio

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...