David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Elsewhere (243) »

August 13, 2017

Comments

sH2
So there you have it: Administrators are no longer figuratively retreating or cowering from out-of-control students. They're creating the physical architecture to literally do so. It might be more dignified and less expensive to have these kids arrested when they break the law.

That.

Jen

Oh, and a $700,000 security fence to keep the agitated Mao-lings out of the home of former Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks.

Build the wall. :-)

Jamie MacMaster

Escape hatches, eh? I keep getting this picture in my head....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/nazi-u-boat-photographed-off-north-carolina-coast-72-years-after/

Ian

There seems to have been quite a high turnover of staff at the top two echelons of the Berkeley administration of late. I wonder if it's connected at all.

JuliaM

Oh, Jamie, I think there was probably far more diversity of opinion on that U-Boat than the average college campus...

Pogonip

Don't any of these college administrators have kids? All parents know that very often kids will act up just to see if you care enough to stop them, and if you don't, they'll keep pushing till you do. Now, imagine you're a spoiled American princess (SAP) who's been doing this for 18 years, and you arrive at college ready to burn down a building if that's what it takes to get an adult to take you in hand. Not only that, you are coping with the instinct to make sure your mate is strong, but all the boys you know are emasculated. No wonder they're frustrated and angry.

Nikw211

OT

    This generational divide between daughters and mothers who reached adulthood on either side of 1989 supports the idea that women had more fulfilling lives during the Communist era. [...]

    In all the Warsaw Pact countries, the imposition of one-party rule precipitated a sweeping overhaul of laws regarding the family. Communists invested major resources in the education and training of women and in guaranteeing their employment. State-run women’s committees sought to re-educate boys to accept girls as full comrades, and they attempted to convince their compatriots that male chauvinism was a remnant of the pre-socialist past.

    Although gender wage disparities and labor segregation persisted, and although the Communists never fully reformed domestic patriarchy, Communist women enjoyed a degree of self-sufficiency that few Western women could have imagined. Eastern bloc women did not need to marry, or have sex, for money.

    [ ... ] Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed ...., but sometimes necessary social change — which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things — needs an emancipation proclamation from above.

Remarkable!

David

Remarkable!

And here we can see those super-satisfied sexy ladies shopping in Moscow, circa 1990.

Erotic!

Nikw211

Erotic!

Heh.

Eastern bloc women did not need to ... have sex ... for money.

Indeed, they did not if an account I once read is to be believed - commodities such as bras, soap, and raincoats could all be exchanged for sexual favours at one point with no money changing hands at all ...

Hopp Singg

Enabling and excusing all that leftist psychodrama sure is expensive.

But not to those responsible.

David

But not to those responsible.

Quite. See also the penultimate paragraph here. The word parasitic would not be entirely unfair.

R. Sherman

Instalanche!

I'd grab the bugle and sound "stand-to" but I always confuse that call with "officers dress for dinner."

David

Regarding Berkeley and its sociopathic Children of Marcuse, its occurs to me that the people most titillated by the thought of communism and its variants, by massive state control, and by, shall we say, lively revolution, are typically themselves exemplars of a degenerate overclass, the radical downsizing of which would perhaps be beneficial. They should pray no-one takes them up on their own fantasies.

champ

Remarkable!

They had more sex because there was nothing else fun or interesting to do (plus, they had little or no money for the other non-existent things to do)

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Women probably had better sex under the Nazis, too.

R. Sherman

"Women probably had better sex under the Nazis, too."

Related.

champ

Related

I guess, if they liked rough sex...

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism

Car buying as a lot easier in the DDR too, none of this tedious brand comparison and test drives, you could get your Trabi* in a Sedan or combi, and have a betting pool with your pals on which of the five colors it would be.

*High ranking party members excluded because you could opt for a Wartburg

Nemo

Allegedly, early 1940s London was also very sexually-liberating for women, but blitzkrieg still gets a bad rap. Where's a PhD when you need one?

Daniel Ream

commodities such as bras, soap, and raincoats could all be exchanged for sexual favours at one point with no money changing hands at all

The Yanks in the audience won't know this, but for Canadians part of the orientation on the first day of your package holiday in Cuba is some form of "If you leave the tourist areas, you'll get a lot of offers of sex from the local women in exchange for real currency, toiletries, clothing, makeup, etc. You probably won't get rolled and the police won't bust you, but you will catch something nasty and possibly uncurable. So don't."

John D

and by, shall we say, lively revolution,

Like a fool I watched the video. What useless f*cking clowns.

Adam

I spent some time in the lovely Italian city of Verona. The impressive castle there dates from the 14th century and boasts a beautiful arched bridge across the Adige, one of the first bridges of its type ever built in the world.

It turns out that the bridge was not used to enter the castle. It was the backdoor not so secret escape route for the local nobility if the peasants ever became too revolting.

Our betters - taking our cash and building themselves tidy ways to flee the scene for a thousand years.

Nikw211

Where's a PhD when you need one?

Do you remember that phrase, "the long, march through the institutions"?

Well, rather curiously, the Times describes the author of 'Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism' as "a professor of Russian and East European studies". Yet a Google search for the same person returns her as an ethnographer and professor of Gender and Women's Studies. I suppose the two are not necessarily incompatible, but still that's quite some transformation from one field to another ...

In any case, you have to admire her honesty (my italics):

    Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed ...., but sometimes necessary social change — which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things — needs an emancipation proclamation from above.

No ambiguity there as to the real agenda.

David

Like a fool I watched the video. What useless f*cking clowns.

Well, yes. The Clown Shoe Left in full effect. A room full of narcissists, all telling each other how they value humility, while boasting about how important and “dangerous” their ideas are, and by extension how important and dangerous they are, because they are “an insurgent movement,” one that will “break the government” and initiate a “revolutionary transformation of society.” As humble people do. (Much like Laurie Penny, Mr Miéville’s pronouncements are reliably degenerate.)

And it’s the same kind of preening degeneracy we saw when the Guardian’s Zoe Williams, another well-heeled daughter of leftist privilege, told us that we mustn’t discriminate between the unfortunate and the verminous, the deserving and undeserving. Between elderly ladies with little cash to spare, and the serial predators who mug them while they’re visiting the graves of their loved ones. Because, um, capitalism.

And if that sounds monstrous and absurd, and it is, bear in mind that similar views were aired by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the palace-dwelling lefty Rowan Williams, who parroted the Guardian’s line about “the most unhelpful of distinctions.” You see, we mustn’t differentiate between the poor and law-abiding, and those who prey on them because they enjoy it and because they’d rather not get a job. It’s “a fictional divide,” you see. Of course, neither Ms Williams or the former Archbishop are likely to live next door to the kind of people who father twelve children, all fed and clothed by the state, and who rob old ladies in graveyards. For beer money.

Hal

It turns out that the bridge was not used to enter the castle. It was the backdoor not so secret escape route for the local nobility if the peasants ever became too revolting.

Murphy's Law of combat #27---at least on the list I have---:

Make it tough for the enemy to get in and you can't get out.

Rob

Of course, neither Ms Williams or the former Archbishop are likely to live next door to the kind of people who father twelve children, all fed and clothed by the state, and who rob old ladies in graveyards. For beer money.

You can't expect lefties to pick up the bill. That's what the little people are for.

David

You can’t expect lefties to pick up the bill.

As suggested in the earlier thread, it’s tempting to imagine a reality TV series in which Ms Williams, our piously non-judgmental Guardianista, discovers that Mr Murgatroyd, his partner, and their twelve little Asbo-boasting darlings have moved in next door.

You’d watch, and you know it.

Joan

A $9,000 security door. Oh, and a $700,000 security fence to keep the agitated Mao-lings out of the home of former Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks.

Things that won't be said: 'We're spending all this money on out of control students. Maybe there's something wrong with what we're teaching them'.

David

Things that won’t be said: ‘We’re spending all this money on out of control students. Maybe there’s something wrong with what we’re teaching them’.

I suspect the universities have painted themselves into a corner. The vanities and conspiracy theories that animate such behaviour are now stitched into the bureaucratic fabric of many ‘educational’ institutions. A large chunk of their income comes from suckers who waste money (often taxpayers’ money) on Angry Studies and other pseudo-subjects. And so the fact that those things are intellectually worthless and socially corrosive, to the extent that devotees must be deterred with reinforced doors and security fences, is outweighed by the fact that it would cost an awful lot to close those joke departments down, and thereby lose the custom of countless inadequates.

Blobby

Just expel the little sh1ts!

R. Sherman

Via Instapundit, somewhat related from Jeff Goldstein.

David

somewhat related from Jeff Goldstein.

And yet, even after the dismaying scenes in Charlottesville, I imagine we’ll be seeing dozens of Angry Studies departments doubling down on cultivating the kind of tribal resentment that makes fragmentation and violence all the more likely. “Whiteness” will be deemed even more “problematic,” a state of default sin, and used as a go-to excuse for any petty resentment or personal inadequacy.

Spiny Norman

Via Instapundit

Naturally, the alt-right commentators at Insty denounce Goldstein as a "Neo-Con" (WTF?!?), and prove his point in spades. The alt-right identity cultists have taken over the Instapundit reader commentary (as one brave soul put it "Instapundit has become Stormfront so slowly we didn't even notice.") - and it's the reason I don't bother with that site anymore. (Sorry, Professor Reynolds, but it's true.)

R. Sherman

...the alt-right commentators at Insty denounce Goldstein as a "Neo-Con" (WTF?!?), and prove his point in spades.

I don't read the comments at Instapundit, inasmuch as it's heavy on links and lighter on original content, so I haven't noticed a metamorphosis. Nonetheless, it doesn't surprise me, especially with those like Jeff. I'd wager the vast majority of those commenting have no idea who Jeff is, or his history or have read any of his years of output to truly understand the intellectual, philosophical basis for his position(s). And because the commenters don't have the intellectual chops to engage him respectfully at his level, they simply resort their laundry lists of talking-points and insulting epithets.

Sporkatus

A point I've been banging on about at Ace's from time to time: this is entirely a predictable result of the media's insistence that Evil Racists (tm) have taken over the country. This is a pronouncement that precipitates two distinct kinds of violence.

Marginally-clinging-to-sanity sociopathic Leftist: "Well, goodness me - I ought to do something about that. Violent, even. Might be fun, and it's even probably excusable!

Utter mad person: "Trump's a racist, you say! Jollity! I'll just go out and be a twerp because racism is in power now."

In both cases, it is the calumny of the media that has normalized the result.

And yet, there is a post-Tea Party Right that finds (increasingly) that the Republican Party has no interest in conserving anything other than power bases, and these folk find themselves without formal framework. In the process of rejecting strictures of PC as they become ever more fantastic, a whole spectrum now exists between "not really bothered by screams of racism anymore, because it's rarely legitimate" and "since I'm a racist no matter what, might as well."

Media casts an extremely wide net, and thus "Alt Right" is given as a label for all, and more. The arguably "true" Alt Right are worthy of rejection, perhaps, but why should we be so eager to cast from the garden with flaming sword anything with "racism cooties" that we endorse and perpetrate the memes of the Left? I hear that Damore fellow's Alt Right now, isn't it shocking?

In other words, rejection of the identity politics of the Left and refusal to endorse the identity politics of the (alleged) Right is most correct, not a focus on theatrical denunciation of "core" Alt Right - because that continues to enforce the perception that only one kind of identity politics is legitimate. We cannot reject Alt Right wholesale based on a correct definition if the media are going to determine the definition which is actually used.

The outright evils of the ostensible Right are perpetrated by *mad people*. The only effective control over mad people is that via their violation of the rule of law - other than not encouraging them. However, control of the more possibly-racist ordinary Elmer on the street is best accomplished by *not* playing to the media playbook and pursuing a relatively pointless aim (identify and contain mad people) by Javert tactics and sending for the witch-finders.

The media can call anyone they want Alt Right. If we continue to froth as they wish us to, we embue the term with power - the power for the media to conduct ritual denunciation and delegitimization, and the power of "fear" to mad people. It's a one-way ratchet.

This is why, while Jeff is correct on the merits and factually, I continue to regard his *prioritization* of his Alt Right fears as less worthy of jeremiads than many other things, and refusal to draw distinctions as damaging. People hunger for a Right that does something, anything, and Alt Right is too easily conflated with what one might call the New Right (and insufficiently against its aims) to conduct a Bircher purge at the highest possible priority. Plus, it smacks of foolishness to reject any and all platforming of identity and fail to reject anything else toxic even in moderation already running rampant in the Party.

They say nearly every vice is born of a corrupted virtue, and we risk threatening the virtue in shrieks against the vice. Propensity to react irrationally to the race card is, let's call it what it is, a hallmark of the rarefied elite and a badge of oikophobia - its own vice.

David

The media can call anyone they want Alt Right.

Jordan Peterson was recently labelled by Business Insider as “far right.” Based on what is a mystery.

Spiny Norman
And yet, there is a post-Tea Party Right that finds (increasingly) that the Republican Party has no interest in conserving anything other than power bases, and these folk find themselves without formal framework.
The Tea Party protests, and the downright silly media reaction, disturbed the Republican Party establishment enough that they felt a need to crush it (the Democrats weren't the only ones using the IRS as an "attack dog" - there was little sustained objection from the Party leadership). The rise of the identity cult fringe was predictable, really.
Spiny Norman

Based on what is a mystery.

It seems the dominate media trope is that anyone opposed to the "Progressive" Left is "far right". "Right-wing" just wasn't sneering enough.

Sporkatus
there was little sustained objection from the Party leadership. The rise of the identity cult fringe was predictable, really.

And cutting off the fringe hastily, at this point, risks damaging the garment when there's still a lot of mud in the air one needs the jacket for.

My invitation to the media when called upon to denounce the fringe and fringe only (a Kafka trap in and of itself - need to denounce means it *is* otherwise your fault and will continue to be regardless) is via a bit of Italian cultural appropriation.

Va fangoul, I believe would be the phrase.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

Based on what is a mystery.

Probably being anywhere left of Jane Fonda or Jeremy Corbyn.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

That would be anywhere right of the aforementioned. D'oh.

R. Sherman

@Spork,

Of course, you're correct in identifying the problem: What constitutes "right" and "left?" Certainly, with the "right" anything which is not a complete and total affirmation of the Progressive, anti-western, anti-individual, pro-authoritarian project is deemed "alt-right" or "nazi" or "hate" or whatever ad hominem epithet is in vogue. (See, e.g. forced conscription to bake cakes for things of which you disapprove or criminal charges for refusing to call a male "she" merely because he demands it.) It's a deliberate means to avoid having to address actual arguments and camouflages the true agenda.

And, as you point out, when civil discourse and bourgeois propriety are foreclosed as a means of dealing with disputes or even to be left alone, then there is only one recourse. The progressive Left has done its darnedest to bring us to the point by way of design. It's done so, because it believes it will win.

R. Sherman

...I imagine we’ll be seeing dozens of Angry Studies departments doubling down on cultivating the kind of tribal resentment that makes fragmentation and violence all the more likely.

Specifically . . .

David

Specifically . . .

Or, “Whatever doesn’t flatter me is a dark demonic force.”

Sporkatus
Or, “Whatever doesn’t flatter me is a dark demonic force.”
Which sounds like an overstatement of things, until you remember that, with total credulity, a supposed member of the clergy was quoted in major newspapers saying that Trump's inauguration contained a tangible dark spiritual presence. He could feel the evil, you see.

The dark and arcane doesn't exist until it does, as convenient.

Alex deWinter

The guy's name actually is Murgatroyd. Until I clicked through to the article, I thought he was being called that as a joke.

Heavens.

Nikw211

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos


champ

Based on what is a mystery.

Maybe because he speaks the truth?

TimT

I wouldn't be surprised if it's common - my wife works at an Australian university where a few years ago, apparently, the vice-chancellor was forced to retreat from the habitually-revolting students down an underground tunnel.

The uni - which was built in the 60s - has two traffic entrances, and a conspiracy theory about the uni architecture goes that, in the event of student protests, the entrances/exits can be easily blocked on both sides by police.

Spiny Norman

... in the event of student protests, the entrances/exits can be easily blocked on both sides by police.

Seems reasonable to me, all things considered.

TomJ

“Whiteness” will be deemed even more “problematic,” a state of default sin, and used as a go-to excuse for any petty resentment or personal inadequacy.

I don't always agree with Frank Firefighters, but he is on good form here on "whiteness":
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whiteness-a-nonsense-category

dcardno

but he is on good form here on "whiteness":

Well, if you mean expending a thousand or so words to say nothing, then I have to agree. He says there are three ways to respond to the idea of "whiteness" - to boil it down: to be a real life Geoffrey Elfwick (pbuh) or pajama boy; to be a Nazi or skinhead; or, to be "something else" which he does not expound upon or elucidate. He almost made an argument againt identity politics, but couldn't bring himself to it.

It's not possible to agree or disagree with him, since he comes to no conclusion - the only possible reaction has to be, "Yes; please go on..."

Randy

Darleen,

Is Jeff writing regularly anywhere now?

Sella Turcica

Compare and contrast:

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time...

Spiny Norman

Is Jeff writing regularly anywhere now?

Facebook.

It's mostly personal family stuff, though, not like his old Protein Wisdom blog. He does occasionally post a "what grinds my gears" thing like what was linked, but not that often.

Spiny Norman

Messed up link. Try this:

Jeff Goldstein on Facebook.

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll