Scapegoat

The pundits are lining up to kick Obama while he’s down, and as usual, they’re merely bleating what the Crowd wants them to hear.

Right now, what the Crowd wants to hear is: it’s Obama’s fault.

Underneath that, in a whisper: not our fault.

A sane person will express the opposite message: it’s our fault. We elected this guy because it struck us as ironic, compassionate, etc. (insert other sentiment here) to have the first African-American president.

The majority of American voters thought this symbolic act would heal our problems. They were however identifying the symptoms (effects) of our problems instead of the causes of our problems, which include our addiction to two insane notions: diversity and class warfare.

In effect, we elected a stronger endorsement of the cause of our problems. Here’s why:

  1. Diversity doesn’t work. Diversity of any form does not function. It is like trying to use butter to dent steel. It is a paradoxical situation that forces destruction of a majority culture, and adoption of non-culture, which merely empowers the most vicious elements of commerce and bureaucracy. It forces minorities to either sell out and become Uncle Toms, or to stay true to their culture and be treated as a permanent underclass. It forces the majority into guilt, self-hatred and self-destruction. It is a stupid idea and has always been a stupid idea. 200 years ago this knowledge was common wisdom. Thanks to many years of listening to popular notions of “truth,” we now have drifted so far from reality that we are indulging in Soviet-style illusions that exist for political but not practical purposes.
  2. Class warfare does not work. The Crowd wants to think that every person is equal; this is because each person, without a reality check, becomes an egomaniac in the presence of others. They do this in order to represent their own interests first, and to avoid having others roll all over them; some do it because they are natively (genetically) stupid, and stupid people are oblivious to everything but themselves. Either way, the result is a disturbing stupidity where the individual feels logical in acting as if they alone exist. They thus demand equality, which at first means political power, but because that doesn’t solve their “problems” (usually of their own creation, or limitations of their intelligence) they start demanding an equal share of the pie. This kills all Darwinism, which is a process by which the competent rise above the rest. The result is state-subsidized incompetence, and a process of mandating equality by force.

Obama was elected as a triumph of “diversity,” which means the destruction of a majority ethnic group by importing wholly unrelated ethnic groups.

Obama is a symbol of diversity succeeding. People elected Obama because he’s black. 95% of black people voted for him because he’s black. White liberals voted for him because he’s black. Everything else was window dressing to disguise that. He never was a great orator, or thinker. He was black. If we see a black guy in the White House, diversity must be OK.

Obama’s ideology however was pure class warfare.

“Class warfare” is a code word for wealth redistribution which is in turn a euphemism for taking from the rich, and giving to the poor, even though the rich — who are generally more competent; although individual cases of incompetence may be found, in general they are more competent than the people who litter, vandalize, criminalize and eventually burn down their own ghettoes and blight their middle-class neighborhoods with alcoholism, incest, and dysfunction — are the source of most of our wealth.

Proles don’t know this, but anyone above them will: Working a job doesn’t produce wealth. Selling end-user products like hair care and alcohol to one another does not create wealth. Inventing a new gadget, creating a company or factory, or driving movement in the market creates wealth. The rich make wealth for all of us.

The ideology that infests all who see themselves as underdogs — freaks, minorities, gender oddities, homosexuals, religious minorities, the poor, the drug-addled, the drunk, the sad, the neurotic, etc — is that since they are the smaller group, and they suffer, it must be the fault of the larger group.

Since you can’t raise up the incompetent, you have to hobble the competent. But the underside of wealth redistribution is the destruction of civilization. It reverses the order of society from upward to downward. Instead of trying to be competent, we penalize the competent in order to be popular among the incompetent, who then grow in number. Soon only a hollow shell filled with idiots remains.

This sleight-of-hand only works through the assumption of equality, e.g. thinking that if John and Bill live next door, and John lives in impoverished squalor, it’s not his fault, since he’s equal to Bill and Bill lives in comfort and stability.

It can’t be the alcoholism, divorce, domestic violence, incompetence and disorganization that keeps John down. It must be that Bill somehow rose above at John’s expense. This is the ugliest side of human psychology, because it allows us to blame others for our own faults.

By making that one statement, I have guaranteed that this blog post will never be mainstream. That statement is the ultimate unpopular statement, and they’ll construe it as bashing the poor and elitism. Maybe it is, but it’s also truthful, and that’s what they deny.

That impulse to deny truth is why people elected Barack Obama. They wanted to believe in hope and change not because he said them, but because he himself is a symbol — a rock star — that made them think they could deny truth and get away with it.

The truth is that diversity won’t work, and class warfare won’t work; both destroy civilizations. After the civilization is destroyed, ethnic minorities and the poor are worse off. But that doesn’t make for a good symbol. A black guy in the White House? What a great symbol! A great message to the world!

Never mind that he comes from the most corrupt political machine in North America, the Chicago machine. Never mind that he has no experience other than being a political figurehead. Never mind that he is a hardcore Marxist, who absorbed not only Marxism but race retaliation ideology. Forget all that!

But whereas the communists had in their delusional vision of the Soviet Union a model of the kind of society that would replace the one they were bent on destroying, the new leftists only knew what they were against: America, or Amerika as they spelled it to suggest its kinship to Nazi Germany. Thanks, however, to the unmasking of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian nightmare, they did not know what they were for. Yet once they had pulled off the incredible feat of taking over the Democratic Party behind the presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, they dropped the vain hope of a revolution, and in the social-democratic system most fully developed in Sweden they found an alternative to American capitalism that had a realistic possibility of being achieved through gradual political reform.

{…}

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

{…}

In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.

But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president’s attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, “What Happened to Obama?” is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind. – WSJ

The ideology of the 1960s was Marxism. Now thanks to aging boomers and their propaganda spin, we have elected a true blue ideologue whose goal is to turn this country into something more like the Soviet Union and less like 1980s America.

Not surprisingly, failed ideologies fail consistently because they suffer from bad design. No amount of care, craftsmanship and high technology can fix a fundamentally bad (illogical, paradoxical, unrealistic) design. Marxism is a failure like egalitarianism and class warfare have always been failures. They are the same basic belief.

With Barack Obama, we elected a guy who believes in these crazy things and wants to make sure we all get on board with the insanity. If we resist, in his view, we’re the bad guys. Yet he must be correct because a nation full of lazy, self-pitying, uninformed and resentful people elected him to go after the rich and conservative people. Go get ‘im, Barack!

Now that the consequences of putting an insane ideology in the White House are clear, these same voters are covering their own behinds. They don’t want to admit that they made a horrible mistake in electing this guy. As a result, they’re blaming him.

The real problem still remains: a society addicted to preference will prefer pleasant illusions to complex and not wholly pleasant truths. As a result, our voters have run from one illusion (hope and change) to another (it’s all Obama’s fault).

And not a damn thing was learned.

31 Comments

  1. crow says:

    Nothing is ever learned as long as excuses are made and fault re-direction is the response to bad results.

  2. Tom says:

    I agree that it’s not completely Obama’s fault, but in my opinion we simply can’t afford any more of his policies. The stimulus failed, and without a cap on spending we’ll keep pissing our money into the wind.

    1. I agree here. The point (as prompted by Podhoretz) is that we got what we elected, and now people are feigning surprise. We shouldn’t let the voters off the hook for their bad decisions.

      1. Tom says:

        True enough. You break it, you buy it.

  3. Will says:

    Speaking of scapegoats, one is exchanged, implicitly, for others, ideologies as well as demographic strata, by mere mention.

    These rather cheap neocon rhetorics should be ditched; in European political discourse this would be considered populism of the bluntest sort.

    1. What exactly are you referring to?

      1. Will says:

        It is, foremost, a matter of stylistic conduct, the chaining of arguments and the use of certain watchwords.

        The article points towards a problematic issue of democratic societies of large, heterogenic and thus divergent populations: that symbolic acts replace pragmatic government or justify the actual lack thereof. However, rhetorically, the article quickly shifts towards slaughtering liberal holy cows with a McCarthian vocabulary (class warfare, Marxism, allusions to the Soviet Union); while it is certainly true that the doctrines of the liberal left have parallels in Marxist theory, identifying them with those is still a imaginative distortion, especially in readers not too well versed in political theory who see in e.g. Marxism more of a symbol in itself (consider Obama holding a TV speech in front of a large red banner depicting Karl Marx). Similarily, lining up the “freaks, minorities, gender oddities, homosexuals, religious minorities, the poor, the drug-addled, the drunk, the sad, the neurotic” in an article titled like this is dubious. Each of these “freaks” (again, a problematic choice of expression) may propose a complex set of issues on their own; truly each of that scum, the peons and the turnip-pickers (like they’d be called on ANUS, just for contrast) are beneficiaries of egalitarianism, at least in short terms; however, it seems they don’t matter much for this article’s argument, but anyway are equalized here just as well, in a sweeping, simplistic fashion that is likely to be interpreted as populist. Then, a sentence like “The rich make wealth for all of us” reads like from a pathetic neocon sermon and is surrounded by questionably little context. Going on like this, axiomatic chops and apodictic chunks thrown in here and there, valuable points made become overshadowed.

        While to a thoughtful person the underlying ideas make sense, this too can easily become a form of pandering, reassuring (that is, not educating) conservative mere sentiments and oversimplifying things for the sake of having something (symbols again) to point at instead of grasping the processes working underneath. I surely don’t want this to be understood as an appeal to political correctness, but I fear the implicative terseness and at times overly simple choice of calling things won’t do much good aside from entertaining the already convinced and pissing of the casual leftist reader; undecided neutrals will likely be confused or deterred.

        1. crow says:

          You read all that into the post, Will? That’s incredible.
          None of that would ever have occurred to me. It’s a good thing you have painted so clear a picture of what it means, and how it should be interpreted, because now I am no longer in any doubt.
          I had thought it was just some guy expressing his views.
          Or something.

          1. Will says:

            Sarcasm is always a bad start for an exchange. As is not observing language and its consequences on reasoning and thought.

            Opinions essentially are worthless, and I’m sure Mr Stevens knows that.

            1. Opinions essentially are worthless, and I’m sure Mr Stevens knows that.

              Here we get into trouble with what is opinion, what is fact, etc.

              Many see all language and symbol as a means of describing the world; our goal is to pick those descriptions which are more accurate than others.

              That’s probably not dramatic and “feeling” (?) enough for the mainstream, but luckily, here we hope to influence a layer before that and achieve trickle-down…

          2. crow says:

            A lack of goodwill is just as bad a start for an exchange.

            But I have recently discovered the joys of sarcasm as a counter to that lack. If no fun is to be had, then I must supply my own. I apologize for my lack of finesse in this new field; I haven’t had much practice. At least you recognized it for what it was.

            Also: I find that excessive language, and its ambiguous use, delivered with less that benevolent intent, is, too, a bad start to communication.

            There I go, assuming communication was the goal.
            I really must stop assuming the best intentions.

            But this is not really my business, and so I will now dematerialize :)

            1. There I go, assuming communication was the goal.
              I really must stop assuming the best intentions.

              Yet whenever you do, you raise the standards of the conversation.

              Most people react badly to it at first; after all, you’ve challenged them.

              Only later does it dawn on them — shades of the first day of high school — that you challenged them because you believed they could rise to the occasion.

              It was a gift, not a threat, all along.

        2. However, rhetorically, the article quickly shifts towards slaughtering liberal holy cows with a McCarthian vocabulary (class warfare, Marxism, allusions to the Soviet Union);

          Similarily, lining up the “freaks, minorities, gender oddities, homosexuals, religious minorities, the poor, the drug-addled, the drunk, the sad, the neurotic” in an article titled like this is dubious.

          Which part of these is untrue?

          Your argument appears to be:

          Because you have enemies, and some designations of enemy are symbolic acts, many will assume that you are doing the same.

          That’s a generic and non sequitur rebuttal.

          1. “Because you have enemies, and some designations of enemy are symbolic acts, many will assume that you are doing the same.”

            “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
            -Winston Churchill

          2. Apuleius says:

            Opinions, while inferior to facts, are most definitely NOT worthless. Some opinions are better than others, this requires discernment, the sharpest judgment. Language and symbol are either yoked to transcendent Truth or they become demonic tools.

            I defer further to crow and Brett to defend the obvious. When some play with words and ideas, which are dangerous things, it reminds me of a child playing with matches. Thinking of you, Will.

          3. Will says:

            First, I want to say that crow’s accusation lack of goodwill on my side does not accord with my actual intent, however “harsh” my comments may have read. Actually, I’m not arguing against the article, with which I basically agree, but rather I am concerned with its exemplative conduct, seeing that you do not write for personal entertainment, but for a cause.

            Like you said, “Many see all language and symbol as a means of describing the world; our goal is to pick those descriptions which are more accurate than others”, I shared a few impressions of a more linguistical sort to provide some possibly constructive feedback on how the article may be read or perceived from a more distant, neutral point of view. To me, contrary to your suggestion, the article actually seems a bit too tinged with “feeling” (or aimed to arouse emotion) and too reliant on the empty drama that comes with labels, too opining, polarizing. I correspond with what is running underneath, but question the purpose this and likewise articles will actually serve. I have no doubt you can explain and defend any claim or point or remark made in it or others, but people stuck in the grey between fact and opinion may be deterred to inquire further, if not by the repetition of conservative dogma to the point of becoming trite or even esoteric, but because of superficialties that could be dismissed as stylistically sloppy, rupt or simply stereotypical, which are easily ill-perceived as plain populist agenda, as irrational or pandering, serving a bad purpose a more elegant sobriety or elaborate coherence would avert and win over relevant people more easily.

            Maybe it’s just that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of american political journalism and its struggle for opinion, or misconceive Amerika.org, but I hope my two pence serve a little purpose either in shallow meditation.

            1. Thanks for clarifying.

              I think the problem is that your suggestion is a generic — people on the fence will only be safe with language so neutral that it conveys nothing.

              Wealth redistribution/class warfare is part of the agenda of the left. I can try to think up some euphemisms, but then I’ve become disingenuous.

          4. Repair_Man_Jack says:

            It’s not class warfare if the other guy is a “bankster!” (sarcasm off/

            1. They stole our jerbs mortgages!

  4. [...] Scapegoat, ‘Game’ – The Game That’s Played On You, Civilization Types, The Warrior [...]

  5. Ryan says:

    mike judge’s Idiocracy was on the TV today, its like the lords of basic cable sent out a subliminal bit of irony to all the masses writhing about in their nihilistic hedonism. good article and who cares if your writings seem “neo-con” or what not. i certainly think that it is WE who also have a problem, not just “the banksters and the pentagon”, do you really need a fucking dodge charger or a fucking speedboat?

  6. John D says:

    I think Will’s comments point out something I’ve felt about this blog for a while; that whereas the underlying points are insightful, it is often written in such a way that it contains annoyed invectives rather than calm, rational opinions. I personally find that to comprehend opposing viewpoints is more important than seeing things objectively from the sidelines. If one can sympathize with his enemies, he is in a position to learn something.

    Also I must say, I find it difficult to take any post seriously when it argues that Americans voted for Obama (not to mention he was favored by the vast majority of Europeans) only because he was black. And if we blame others for voting in a President whose beliefs/goals are different than our own, are we not simply falling into the same trap of blaming our problems on others?

    1. And if we blame others for voting in a President whose beliefs/goals are different than our own, are we not simply falling into the same trap of blaming our problems on others?

      I think you misunderstood the article: we blame them for voting in someone for novelty factors despite his lack of appropriate experience or qualifications.

      Let me ask you this:

      If Obama had been a white guy named Barry Jones, would he have won that election?

      1. John D says:

        No, I’m fairly certain I understood the article, at least on the surface, though I can’t be sure I understand all of the emotional responses associated with the problem. Since I live in Massachusetts, typical political attitudes or thought processes of those in Texas (or elsewhere in the South) may be different from my own, for example.

        I can’t pretend to understand how everyone forms opinions regarding presidential candidates, and I do of course think that plenty of people voted for Obama in order to avoid “more of the same.” But I also think there is a large number of reasonable, critically thinking people who voted for him because of his positions on the war and the economy, and are now displeased with the direction his administration has taken.

        Elections will always be at the mercy of the hoi polloi, at any rate. Even if you prefer Republicans over Democrats, you have to wonder why people like Perry or Bachmann even have a shot.

    2. crow says:

      John D:
      I personally find that to comprehend opposing viewpoints is more important than seeing things objectively from the sidelines.

      That’s probably well-intentioned and generally good practice.
      But what if the opposing viewpoint is actually conditioned madness?
      Comprehending such is not really an option. Madness, by its nature, is not comprehensible.
      My wife and I often observe – for example – that if we were able to understand the leftist view, we would really be in trouble!

  7. Kinderling says:

    Hi John D

    “Also I must say, I find it difficult to take any post seriously when it argues that Americans voted for Obama (not to mention he was favored by the vast majority of Europeans) only because he was black”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecdf4RSVe1Y&feature=player_embedded

    Just scroll to 4:50 minutes where Harry Alford CEO National Black Chamber of Commerce CEO is asked by Laura Ingraham “Why did you vote for him”
    “Because he was Black because he was Black and that was a lesson I will take to my grave”.

    How difficult is it to understand that people make a career out of their affirmative ‘special attributes?’

  8. Aaronovitch says:

    ironic or iconic?

  9. JHB says:

    Another factor to keep in mind is that Barack Obama was elected precisely because he did not have any accomplishments as a leader.

    A zillion white Obama supporters told me after the election, “Isn’t is great that we have a black President?” Why did they care that he was black? It was like they were broadcasting themselves in a way that says: look at how good *I* am for supporting the less fortunate.

    Think about it. If Obama created a multi-million dollar corporation, or achieved high rank in the military establishment, or revolutionized an entire field through publishing as a university professor, he would have not had the support he received from white America. For whites voted for Obama as an expression of their white guilt — an act of charity.

    Blacks have risen to leadership positions in companies like Merck, Aetna, Xerox, Alcoa, Citigroup, but it never gets any attention in the liberal media. It just does not fit the template. That’s because the white producers and consumers of such media can’t feel warm and benevolent and self-satisfied about black success; they need black victimhood for their own self-importance.

  10. [...] Stevens – “Scapegoat“, “Interview with Stephen Clay McGehee of Southern Agrarian“, “The Coming [...]

  11. [...] Stevens – “Scapegoat“, “Interview with Stephen Clay McGehee of Southern Agrarian“, “The Coming [...]

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.048 seconds