HOME

Slumming

;lljoinoiSince we non-elite aren’t privvy to details within the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, we’re left to rumor and innuendo on just what’s in this all-consuming free-trade nightmare almost the entire Congress – Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and richer – have squashed each other like diners at the Coconut Grove fire to support. That in itself brings pause.

Why would the most combative Congress in history suddenly turn all lapdoggie for a President more than half believe is a Muslim spear-chucker born in an overseas tarpit? It couldn’t be because our elites, which control all things Right and Left, want the TPP enacted no matter what. Could it?!!! Shockingly, the treaty hands Obama free reins to execute its terms into reality, and, astoundingly, surrenders all Congressional oversight in the matter. A secret deal hammered out with foreign contrivance becomes the inalterable law of the land.

This is still America, is it not?

We don’t know what’s in it. Hmm. What can that mean? That’s not usual Capitol-Hill drill – our ‘representatives’ approving shit like the Patriot Act they haven’t bothered to read. No. This one is super-secret, an enigma wrapped in a riddle surrounded by a shell of pure, naked avarice.

There really is no Right or Left. We have vestiges of the worst Leftist ideas cloaking policies that benefit only the financial elite. Turning the world into a shapeless Babel of mostly underachievers who profoundly hate each other will leave control in the hands of economic potentates, since they can buy the best and most effective force to keep underling humanity in line. There’s nothing new in this; this is feudal oligarchy merely expanded to truly grand scale. Every seemingly moral stand is twisted to their advantage.”Oh, we must help the disadvantaged” because it truly enhances fortunes of the super-advantaged.

Seems only much-maligned Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking why all the quietus? She and Obama have interrupted their political cooing long enough to trash one another on whether this TPP will be a Toilet Paper Pact for American workers.

Something tells me it will. Here’s Dick Morris writing in The Hill:

It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power while voluntarily reducing congressional oversight. At the very least, one would assume the TPP would give the GOP-led Congress bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for illegals and possibly on ObamaCare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast-track and, by implication, the TPP.

Because foreign treaties are the “law of the land,” according to the U.S. Constitution, any provision governing our borders and the flow of immigrants could not be overridden or even modified by Congress. A new president would be able to reverse Obama’s amnesty plan but not the open-border provisions of the TPP. The treaty could lead to the effective repeal of the specifically enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and naturalization.

Now reasons for the secrecy are clear. If this got out, it could be the shot across the bow that finally awakens this country and sets up gibbets on the Mall to deal with these dandies and traitors.

Here we go again. Open borders, the wet-dream fantasy of super-rich cheap-labor lovers everywhere, may be charging us from down the road, huffing and puffing and shearing the air with its horns. Flooding all properous real estate north of the equator with the chronically needy, forever unskilled from down south has been goal of our elites and their toadies for decades.

One of the writers at Vox is Dylan Matthews and evidently he’s fooled anyone who’s his boss at Vox into believing he actually deserves to be writing anything anywhere. His solution to the “Camp of the Saints” immigrant problem that threatens to drown Europe in even more hostile, frequently violent newcomers from some of the most backward and oppressive places on earth? Let ‘em all in.

Hear his wisdom to assuage Europe’s leaky boatlift of vibrant, dirt-poor multitudes:

“But even the best search-and-rescue operation will only manage the problem. It won’t go away until life in the EU is no longer dramatically better than life in the migrants’ home countries.”

They won’t flee their home pestholes if Europe itself has become a pesthole. Makes sense in a dangerously retarded way. Dangerous because visionaries like Matthews inspire policy down the road. Their crackpot ideas become our round-the-corner reality, bleak as it may be.

Matthews has some heft. He’s also Ezra Klein’s fluff boy at the Washington Post, which, like the Wall Street Journal, is head-over-heels in love with TPP, by the way.

Know what? Go ahead and call me a racist, a hater. Accuse me of turning my back on the most vulnerable of earth’s overpopulated humanity. But there’s a limit to what even the rich West can accomplish. And it will accomplish nothing if it no longer exists.

We’re not going to get a big, fat rainbow paradise out of this. All the shortcomings and poverty of these hardscrabble folk are going to track right in with them. They will be too many to assimilate, and besides, that process of cultural adaption is unfashionable, probably racist, and interferes with charming customs like slaughtering cattle in slow torture, worshiping a vengeful monster in the sky, and ripping ciltorises from women.

This is the kind of dreamy-eyed stupidity that believed war could be abolished in a generation of benign hedonism. …That hate is a viral disease that afflicts only certain demographics. …That we can import hordes of cheap labor without crushing our native-born, low-income, uneducated masses. …That people are interchageable social cogs which can be supplanted in smooth process.

This is brilliance, 21st century style.

- April 23, 13:15 PST

~ O ~

Tag

;liobhpuiMedia antics trying to puff up any of its idiotic “narratives” used to be infuriating, insulting, and astounding in presumptive brazenness. There was, it seemed, expectation from our social justice warriors that no one would dare question any sacred account of hideous, though dodgy, social sin.

Here’s Slate in November, reacting to a horrible rape reported at the University of Virginia,

UVA doesn’t need shock. It needs sustained anger and energy. As for my own anger: I am angry at the alleged rapists. I am angry at an institution that is so embedded in white patriarchal traditions that a female student of color may never ever find any official social space that works for her at UVA. I am angry at my colleagues who are willfully ignorant that rape happens here and who have done nothing about faculty and staff who commit egregious acts of harassment. And I am angry at an institution that would let Eramo, a female associate Dean with relatively little power, be a scapegoat for national and local media alike. It was not shock that I felt when reading the Rolling Stone article. It was anger. And reading the piece with a student who also was not shocked was one of the more excruciating experiences of my time at this school.

Bonnie. Ms. Gordon. Anger is an emotion that can eat you alive. It stands hand in hand with envy and vengefulness as prime motivators of hate.  And you know how horrible hate is. Those forthright and progressive, as you surely are since you toss around specious terms like “patriarchy” and, of course, current bugaboo du jour, “privilege” don’t want to be infected with that invidious malady suffered exclusively by white, straight, gentile men. …Especially if you don’t really have anything to be angry about in the case of UVa – and that seething righteous outrage makes you look all jackass. …Jackass.

And lately that “gentile” detail has come up, as a number of Jewish writers have scurried to deny that Jews enjoy that puffball of “white privilege. Even “conservative” Commentary jumped in:

…If you’re an American Jew in Brodesser-Akner’s (another writer asserting Jews are free of this “privilege” thingy) age range you probably descend from parents or grandparents who were less the beneficiaries of white affirmative action and more the targets of anti-Semitism, in their professional lives at least, that greatly reduced your family’s share of the wealth and access that could be passed to future generations. You are, in other words, on the outside of white privilege looking in. And specifically, someone with few surviving relatives due to the Holocaust is someone who might not have the extended network–familial and otherwise–that would facilitate economic advancement, especially for someone dealing with the generational legacy of past discrimination. Of course, Jews have been quite good at building networks, a skill picked up in response to societal exclusion. In this, they have much more in common with other recent immigrant groups than with “the victimizing caste” in white America.

That Jews and Asians are top earners in America today, notwithstanding. It’s all about the honkies as “the victimizing caste” in white America, don’t you know. Jews and Asians clawed their way to the top in a bloody, violent civil war with American whites that, in reality, never was fought. Our system made room for them.

But Jews are thinking about this “privilege” mantle more and more. It may just be forced to top of their endless pile of issues, too, since it’s unlikely in our brave, new multicultural world that assertions of camaraderie and fictional suffering under the lash of America’s imaginary dark passage of “anti-Semitism” will keep Kews from being classed white by the chronically aggrieved.

I wonder, though, if doubts about their future in the rainbow people’s paradise to come might have something to do with Ross Douthat’s column today in the New York Times. Rarely does mainstream media ever question progressive festoonery like “privilege” – and never does it challenge validity of all that junk we’re supposed to support but know in our hearts is bullshit. (Chief among them, other than “patriarchy” and “privilege” is magic immaculacy of anything “immigrant”.

But there it is. In one, bluntly put column, Douthat effectively crushes the very idea of “privilege” like a Shasta can beneath an Abrams tank. Occasion is cartoonist Garry Trudeau’s recent damning of the dead Charlie Hebdo staff for “punching down” at the “unprivileged” by mocking Islam.

But on the contemporary left, the theory’s simplicity is becoming a kind of intellectual straitjacket. The Hebdo massacre is just one of many cases in which today’s progressives, in the name of overthrowing hierarchies, end up assuming that lines of power are predictable, permanent and clear. Which they are not, for several reasons.

First, while power flows from pre-existing privilege, it also grows from the barrel of a gun, and the willingness to deal out violence changes power dynamics, even when it doesn’t have a truly revolutionary outcome. The terrorist’s veto on portrayals of Islam is itself a very real form of power, and as long as journalists who challenge it end up dead, the idea that they are “up” and their targets are “down” reflects a denial of life-and-death reality. Or, to take a related example, the hundreds of white women recently raped by Pakistani gangs in England’s industrial north were theoretically higher on a ladder of privilege than their assailants. But the gangs’ actual power over their victims was only enhanced by that notional ladder, because multicultural pieties were part of what induced the authorities to look the other way.

Second, we live in a world where William Gibson’s insight that “the future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed” is vindicated every day, and where migration and communication bring cultures that are experiencing this uneven distribution into constant contact. In a globalized world, the faith that the Hebdo cartoonists mocked is the faith of both the powerless and the powerful, of unemployed banlieue dwellers and Iranian theocrats, with threads running in between. (A jihadist in London might have been radicalized in a mosque funded by Saudi petrodollars, for example.)

Noting the negative comments the column attracted – not one punching a single effective hole in Douthat’s idea, and most merely changing the subject – I tried to leave one of my own before the comment section suddenly closed. Perhaps the “anti-privilege as rational concept” crowd had finished its morning coffee and were pouring it on in effective support of Douthat’s thesis. Here, my two cents – or would have been:

Surely, by comments here, you can expect a world of hurt to descend on you. Simply by noting that power blocs aren’t fixed, and are in fact enormously complex and ephemeral, you’ve undone the very basis of “white privilege” ideology.

Any worldview based on historical grievance is dangerous foundation for contemporary policy. We must, finally, live in the present, since that is our only common reality. Our past always will be open to interpretation. The privileged/unprivileged assignment of social hierarchy rests on a historic reading extreme and unshakable, so its key flaw is its simple-minded conclusion that skin color determines human validity. Whites are to be invalidated because we once were slavers, that we occupy the earth and exploit it, that we kept an uncle out of a country club long ago. Our individual characteristics, our humanity, is unimportant. Our history has condemned us ex post facto, since that history has been judged evil.

But, as you point out, Trudeau’s application of it to Charlie Hebdo underlines the ideology’s failure to note the “unprivileged” also can wield extreme power. Anti-Muslim imagery or text will provoke second thoughts in editors and writers throughout the West, regardless how much they thump their chests about free speech. And as the massacres prove, unprivileged execution of power is for them comparatively inexpensive.

Perhaps Jews are waking up to the fact that if they’re denied a seat in the “unprivileged” bus, they may end up on the wrong end of a concept intended to be a death sentence either figurative or literal on awful, evil white people. They should know. Jews like Noel Ignatiev came up with the entire concept of “white privilege”.

If it goes all Golem on you, don’t this borderline unprivileged honky for help.

- April 19, 1710 PS