Posts Tagged ‘hipsters’

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Fifteen: Social Justice

Friday, December 29th, 2017

This week on Nationalist Public Radio, the team — Everitt Foster, James Price, Roderick Kaine, and Brett Stevens — tackle a question at the heart of our contemporary experience: what is “social justice” and what are its advocates, “social justice warriors,” and what do they signify for the future of America and the West? We take on the case of Github and its ongoing convergence and hence, path to failure, and from there extrapolate about what the rise and fall of SJWs means for the dying West.

Download (102mb, 42 minutes)



How Diversity Harms Minority Communities

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

Nobody loves multiculturalism and diversity more than the adolescent liberal trust fund children of wealthy or upper middle class white folk. They are the first to rush to social justice, bask in guilt over the sins of their ancestors, and shut down an argument with convictions of racism and fascism.

But, because they are unreflective of both the consequences of their actions and the inner value of culture, they become what they hate. That abyss stares right back into them. Trustafarians are so poisoned by the Utopian propaganda of egalitarianism that they move into minority neighborhoods legitimately believing that they are doing a service to the communities of these localities. So much so, in fact, that they turn a blind eye to the destructiveness of gentrification which displaces and exterminates actual culture found in the minority neighborhoods that these hipsters are gentrifying.  

For several years, Brooklyn’s Crown Heights neighborhood has been a victim of this plague. Neatly tucked away in the center of the borough, Crown Heights was for many decades a vibrant epicenter of Caribbean-American culture. But once the skyrocketing rents of Manhattan transformed the borough’s housing market into a virtual gated community for the wealthy white, the privileged young working professionals set their eyes on traditionally African American, Caribbean American, and Hispanic communities.  And upon their arrival, it didn’t take the neighborhood’s landlords long to figure out they could evict their tenants and rent their homes for double the price. Wouldn’t you? It’s just business.

Predictably, the newcomers demonstrated blatant ignorance and blithe oblivion as vicious tactics were used to displace the longtime residents of those communities. These terror tactics included water, gas, and power shutdowns. Unfortunately for the residents of New York City, the plague of gentrification has spread across the whole city and extended to business rents as well, as seen in the 30% decrease of black-owned businesses in recent years.

This is the paradox of progressive liberalism: it claims that conservative ideas are racist in intent, while Leftist ideas of diversity are racist in effect by tearing minority families apart and driving them from their homes and historical neighborhoods. But for a movement that champions irony, it’s unsurprising that the privileged white hipsters of Brooklyn are convinced they are sticking up for minorities as they ignorantly trample their culture.  And unfortunately for the communities they are likely to follow Manhattan’s path of destructive, pornographic material vanity. 

Folks, multiculturalism harms all Americans.  It destroys the cultural identity of communities black and white alike.  But due to the many holes in its logic, the left will continue to use every character assassination in the book to shutdown this conversation even as the failures of its narrative become more and more painfully obvious.

Adults In Diapers

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

Leftists are losing it over everything. Betsy DeVos sets them off. Gavin McInnes sets them off. Vladamir’s dastardly invasion of Korea sets them off. The halls of America echo with cries of ¡TRIGGERED! and the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

These triggered people are both remarkably stupid and remarkably motivated. There are Leftists stupid enough to claim PM Justin Trudeau of Canada is a ¡WHITE SUPREMACIST! They’ve even seemingly forgotten about laws against murder.

In California, Democratic assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles has predicted that the anti-Trump resistance will be “a looming, long, ferocious and hard-fought legal war with bloodshed stretching from the Golden State to Washington D.C.”

And that Dastardly Donald has set back Women’s Rights by banning premarital sex

Donald Trump was sworn in as President on 20th January, and in just two weeks he has already set back women’s rights dramatically. He has restricted women’s reproductive rights, cut funding to international organizations who promote, provide and advise on abortions, and just yesterday it was revealed that he’s planning an executive order to declare pre-marital sex, same-sex marriage and abortion to be wrong.

So they’ve gone full SJWtard and you should never go SJWtard. Some call the Left evil. Others call them stupid. JPW the internet comedian calls them material. But there really is a sad and dark side to this entire recent trend. The SJW always has to double down. They yell ¡RACIST! until it gets tired. Then they really get original and yell ¡NAZI! instead.

Milo Yiannapoulos is a gay Jew who can’t seem to go more than five minutes without mentioning that he loves sucking black cock. He has openly and repeatedly disavowed white nationalism, especially the “14/88” crowd. Doesn’t matter. Posters preceding his recent appearance in Denver tagged him as a “Nazi” and encouraged punching him.

When that doesn’t work….It’s time for Lefty Fight Club! Bash the Fash! If that doesn’t work, they ban conservatives from campus so they can feel safe.

The bad thing about this virulent bout of Leftist reality denial is that they have to ratchet it up. There is never any respectable way to climb back down off the ledge. And the carnival barkers and hucksters continue to cheer it on. Here’s a guy who’s “officially neutral” over the violence occurring when Leftists rally.

If you are Trump supporter, maybe you better just stay home. If you so much as leave your house, you probably stand a pretty good chance of getting punched in the face. It’s like punching Trumpsters in the face is some sort of a new national pastime or better yet, sport. We could even make it into a competitive sport and have teams of punchers and the winner would be the team that punched the most Trumpsters the hardest. Seriously man. Whenever I imagine myself as a Trump supporter now, I see this fist flying towards my face. I think I already have PTSD from all this horrible, awful, terrible, disgusting, vile, revolting, sickening, repulsive, infuriating, obnoxious, cringey, gross political violence that I am watching for hours and hours every day. Someone help me, I’m addicted.

Yes, they are addicted: ideology is a nasty crack habit that leads you nowhere special. Someone should help them, if it still remains possible. Making every aspect of your life about ideology only leads to emptiness and disappointment. Ideology infantilizes people, and this makes them helpless and atomized, so their pointless and omnidirectional rage “makes sense” from that vantage point.

Nobody is happy as an adult in diapers. If we remove the reward for virtue signaling, most of these people will move on to something else, like their previous hobbies collecting Beanie Babies, making artisanal garbage cans and moustache farming.

The five types of people you will meet in extreme politics

Sunday, August 16th, 2015


In the mainstream, there are opinions that most people agree are not necessarily true, but safe. They will not disturb a social gathering, which now includes mixed-sex as well as mixed-ethnicity. If you want to know why empires disappear without a trace, it is because almost every person plays “follow the leader” and parrots these mainstream opinions without reference to reality, which is the only standard of actual truth.

When one steps outside the mainstream, the reason most people stay in the mainstream becomes apparent: here be dragons. In fact, most of non-mainstream thought is gibberish concocted for reasons other than trying to find and promote truth, and is prized like a consumer product for being inoffensive and thus unlikely to get the purchaser blamed for its failure. “Well… it was ISO 666 certified!”

However, whether you are left or right — and there are no other philosophically-distinct options, only clever marketing — you will encounter within the world of extreme politics a number of interesting characters. They can be identified by their psychologies, or even pathologies, and here’s a list to help you avoid the worst…

  • The Poseur. The poseur exists to put others down. He believes in things in order to be “better than” other people, which explains away his mildewed townhouse, entry-level (20 years running) job, and general dissatisfaction with life. His purpose is to appear larger than he is.
  • The Hipster. Hipsters are defined by one salient trait: they use external things to define internal. Thus, they listen to bands you have never heard of, wear combinations of clothing you would never consider, and embrace outsider political views just to be different, ironic and unique.
  • The Suicide. This person has given up; life is for nought. He wants a reason to die so he will be remembered well, and so he drifts toward extreme ideology so he can have a solid and exciting reason to kill himself.
  • The Sniper. Some people exist to feel important by tearing down others. The sniper is the person who reads a 400 page manifesto and thinks a minor footnote debunks it all. A person of no power or importance in life, he feels most alive when tearing down those above him.
  • The Innocent. This is the person you actually want to attract. She means well, wants the best results possible, and has found that mainstream politics will never achieve this. Thus she drifts to outsider politics, a nerd among the extremists, and will always do what she thinks is right.

What makes these people similar? Like hipsters, they are “outward in”: they use external accessories to signal internal value. A hipster listens to obscure music so that the hipster seems knowledgeable and like an altruistic librarian, poring deep through the music world to find hidden gems. In fact, what he is pimping is usually obscure because it sucks, but the hipster does not care. He only wants to look good. That is what all of the above, save the Innocents, have in common.

Extreme politics means stepping outside of the nicely-laid path which most walk. That means you are on your own to separate lies from truth, and that because there are no rules, this path will attract a disproportionate number of mental defectives and neurotics. Know the major types that infest extreme politics, right and left alike, and you can avoid having your time wasted by people who are essentially moral parasites.

The hipster generation

Monday, July 6th, 2015


Apparently some millennials feel that they are “The Hipster Generation,” and there is some evidence to support this. In particular, many millennials seem to be hipsters, and millennial culture values the type of hipster lifestyle that “bohemian bourgeois” aging Baby Boomers pioneered in the 1980s: a justification of lifestyle by unique, ethical and self-expressive behavior, products and values.

Part of this originates in the fact that millennials were educated by the people that Baby Boomers put into the schools, colleges and career placement offices; they know only the reality that was considered “new and exciting” (by morons) in 1968. Millennials were born thirty years behind because they got such old, moldy and discredited theories preached to them as truth since they were in the womb. They are the spawn of hippies, and since hippies have lost their revolutionary status and become boutique identity scenesters since the hippies took over, it is only natural that the millennials end up as hipsters.

For ease of understanding what hipsters are, we should turn to the AdBusters article that initiated the postmodern understanding of what makes a hipster:

Ever since the Allies bombed the Axis into submission, Western civilization has had a succession of counter-culture movements that have energetically challenged the status quo. Each successive decade of the post-war era has seen it smash social standards, riot and fight to revolutionize every aspect of music, art, government and civil society.

But after punk was plasticized and hip hop lost its impetus for social change, all of the formerly dominant streams of “counter-culture” have merged together. Now, one mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior has come to define the generally indefinable idea of the “Hipster.”

An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society.

As the title says, hipsters are the dead end of Western civilization. When there are no longer values and goals, we have only the ability to make ourselves look cool and unique. This requires pandering to populism by vigorously affirming the validity and importance of every precious snowflake, which is why hipsters are so PC (at least in public). It also requires the endless chasing of fads and trends so that this person appears to be “in the know.” It also requires dressing up in motley, being random in behavior and preferences, just for the sake of being different than others. In every way, the hipster is comprised of exterior traits designed to communicate with others and compensate for a lack of inner traits; with the hipster, “the medium is the message.”

Such non-people exist only because all inner traits have been abolished. Success in this time depends on conformity to a certification process in propaganda-based education, making the right polite noises about the right topics in conversation, and having enough oddball but admirable activities to have an interesting biography to paste below your CV on job applications. In such a backward approach to life, the inner traits of a human being become justifications for outer appearance, which is more important because social reality and not physical reality predominates. Under social reality, what people think of you is more important than who you are; it is essential to be seen doing the right things, but the quality of those things is secondary to having the right quantities, much in like political correctness there must be certain issues raised in all speech. This environment creates people like hipsters who are 100% external signaling to others, and as a result, have nothing of themselves left inside.

Why conservatives should celebrate William S. Burroughs

Thursday, February 6th, 2014


I normally enjoy Kevin D. Williamson’s writing, but he is off-base about William S. Burroughs.

Williamson committed the mortal sin of being a conservative in this new era, which is a knee-jerk response based on the counter-culture’s version of events, and not the actual events.

The forum he chose for this error is an article spurred by crypto-junkie Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s abrupt overdose death in his NYC apartment:

Connoisseurs of the poppy will go on and on about Great Junkies in History — William S. Burroughs, Sid and Nancy, Billie Holiday — though all in all I’d say that heroin addicts are less tedious on the subject of heroin than potheads are on the subject of pot. They do seem to have a particular fascination with the jargon of heroin, as though every conversation is taking place in 1970. I always have a sneaking suspicion that I could talk people out of deciding to become junkies if only I could get them to read a couple of good books composed with such literary skill as to illuminate the fact that Burroughs was a poseur and a hack.

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Williamson here. I would also like to draw his attention to the following excerpt from his own text:

(For example, alcohol withdrawal is physically a much more dangerous experience than is heroin withdrawal.)

The above fact is mentioned in the introduction to Naked Lunch, where Burroughs — who would been 100 yesterday — talks about the nature of addiction.

However, the real confusion here is Burroughs’ attitude toward heroin. He was not pro-heroin; he wasn’t pro-enforcement either. His point in Naked Lunch was to investigate control systems, using both addiction and enforcement as metaphors (among others).

I realize that the counter-culture tends to glamorize anything that is venal, offensive, trivial or otherwise subversive to the mainstream and their “bourgeois” tendency to have normal, happy and fulfilling lives, but the blame does not attach to Burroughs.

Most of Naked Lunch is the story of people in the grips of control structures, especially invisible ones. He describes his own addiction this way and, as his biography Literary Outlaw: The Life and Times of William S. Burroughs reveals, spent much of his life attempting to get free from heroin. He also struggles with homosexuality and self-destructive tendencies. The point isn’t to praise those, but to praise their overcoming.

The final point made by Naked Lunch is that the real damage of drugs, beyond everything else, is that it steals your time. A good conservative would know that this is why we stand against control: it is destructive, but also, it steals away life and replaces it with ideology and mania.

When all the cards are counted, Burroughs will be remembered as one of the good guys. Relentlessly un-PC, pro-gun, violently independent and critical of all control structures, Burroughs was the ultimate advocate for a society free of the diseases of modernity.

That subsequently hipsters have adopted his image and made it into a rallying cry for their own dysfunction isn’t his fault; is the result of hipsterdom, which is itself a result of the extraverted socialization and consequent control by appearance that is a hallmark of liberalism.

The NPR style

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

Back in the 1980s, we heard a lot about how communist countries had “state-run radio” or some other obvious propaganda device. It conjured up images of banks of censors in basements producing irrationally exuberant radio and TV to manipulate a sleepwalking population.

Now the sleepwalking population is us. Method is often irrelevant; it doesn’t matter whether a large company produces the media, or some dissident hipster alone in a toolshed, or some vast Communist empire of college-trained propagandists. The result is the same.

For example, what does the Communist government preach?

Everything is fine; we have it under control; things are even going great; the bad guys are really bad and will kill your babies; join us and fight them and you will always be accepted.

But really corporate radio is not much different.

Everything is fine; your life will be even better with our product; it’s totally great and will get you laid; there are people who are not fun and they don’t like our product and want to control you; join us in the fight for freedom and buy our product and you will always be accepted.

And hipster radio is even closer to the original.

Everything is fine if you’re one of us; we’re living the good life by not being like the others; while they suffer in boring Catholic jobs and conservative sex lives, we’re rocking hard; the bad guys want to ruin your fun; join us in conforming to non-conformity and you will always be not only accepted, but hipper than others because we accept you.

With that little illusion out of the way, we can take a look at state-run radio in the United States. While our National Public Radio is not fully funded by the state, or directly controlled, it seems to share its personnel exclusively with media and government elites. It handily releases stories that are convenient. And it pumps out propaganda as much as Pravda or East German radio did.

NPR however is subtler. To maintain the illusion of freedom, our propaganda must disguise itself as the alternative to propaganda. This means it must be permissive, but also have a sense of higher moral calling, so you sense that (a) there are no rules but (b) good people behave a certain way and we’ll tell you what it is.

To that end, NPR has developed a distinctive style. If it were music, it would be minor-key. It is a lamentation that wraps itself around “uplifting” ideas that never quite change the mood. It is an affirmation of the crushing power of normalcy while doing its best to notice all the quirky, off-beat, ironic, unique, different and non-conformist details.

In short, it’s a deliberate paradox designed to hide its agenda behind a social statement. Its predominant hook is that its announcers use big(ger) words than average, and speak in hushed tones of awe about weighty topics, and basically act like the kids in the theatre department in high school.

A typical NPR broadcast resembles the ones from the Katrina era:

This block once rang out with the vibrant calls of children at play. A neighborhood for the disadvantaged, Skull Head Point was in the process of pulling itself up by its bootstraps when the storm hit and all but obliterated any hope. Here, neighbors dodged bullets to put together a community eatery and vegetable co-op. Teachers concealed the bodies of the previous night’s shooting so their children could have a few minutes of unabridged delight in a quick pick-up soccer game. Even the local police got in the act, dressing up as Santa and handing out toys made from old warrants. It was a neighborhood of hard times but good spirits, of a dark past but a bright future. And then came the storm.

Now the only basketballs are deflated in ponds of water from which shiny white bones protrude, and the nightly violence is so intense that residents have stopped buying doors because they are simply stolen too fast. Skull Head Point, like so many other aspirations in the twilight of this city, was crushed by the storm that tore down half the neighborhood and flooded the rest. Ida May Barnes, a pancake cook at the bullet-riddled 666 Diner in town that’s the last good employment most residents can get, doesn’t fault President George W. Bush for the storm. “But he sure could get us some new roads, a little faster,” she says with a laugh before she returns to her task of picking up the metatarsals of the dead.

This is intoned in a warm, full voice like 1970s teachers reading from children’s books. Sentences are pronounced with a distinct downward slant, modulating toward a lower key and slower pace as they go on. The timbre of the voice changes too and gets fuller and huskier, as if sadness pervaded it without invitation. Lots of trendy topics are cited to either make you feel like part of the gang, or remind you that you have work to do in order to be as cool as the others.

All of this conceals the fact that the people on this radio station are doing the bidding of their masters, and make ludicrously low salaries, and probably are not qualified for anything outside of this type of “social” job, where a worker is not valued for ability so much as the ability to make other people pay attention to that worker.

The NPR style has infested all forms of mass communication now. It used to be “edgy” and “hip” because it was both bleak and yet trendy and hopeful, so all the dummies in the marketing departments decided to emulate it in the hopes it would sell their products. Legions of blogs and podcasts also imitate it because it is their ideal. Other radio stations took it on to compete.

The result says a lot about the American spirit at this time. We don’t crave red-blooded, clear-sighted and realistic news. We don’t even crave the venal. Instead, we like this mish-mash of the pathetic, lurid and state propaganda, all disguised as an ironic human interest story for intellectuals.

It’s as if we have given up on substance and affirmed style itself. In doing so, we have revealed how empty we are. We don’t want solutions to our problems; we want distractions. We don’t want reality; we want to feel like a nation of self-appointed intellectuals, pushing away problems not because we’re in denial but because we are somehow wiser than reality itself.


Thursday, November 24th, 2011

The 1990s were a shallow, plastic decade and what made it worse was that people then pretended that it was the exact opposite.

If the theme of the 1980s was manic materialism, the theme of the 1990s was denial of the same, with results that somehow imitated that same materialism by not being materialistic.

Just like in the 1960s, everyone dressed up in Hippie Halloween costumes and went out to be profound without money or power, and ended up coming back to money and power, this time with an arrogant belief that there must be no other way.

Shortly after the 1990s ended, a new generation shifted up a hybrid of 1960s and 1990s culture, a hippie-grunge-slacker hybrid. Because such a formulation is inherently unstable, it quickly became a cover story for dishonest, selfish and pointless human beings… in short, average people who wanted to appear exceptional.

For those who think about the issues the MRM raises, there are two good points to make about hipsters:

  1. Irony is hatred. Irony, in the vernacular used by hipsters, means finding out that things are not as you would expect them to be. In other words, the world’s normal course is defeated because we found an exception. This barely-concealed hatred for all normalcy, nature and health exists only to defend the hipster against charges of being weak and pointless, which of course they are. The first group to become hipsters were the ones with the trust funds. They could afford to be insincere.
  2. Betas rise through hipness. Since the dawn of rock ‘n’ roll, beta males — those without exceptional abilities — have been rising by being “hip” and in touch with this new social fashion. If you can’t get ahead by being useful, get ahead by being social. Many males who think they are betas are actually alphas who have been cowed by the hamsterlike obedience that hipness inspires.

Hipsters are insincere and hollow because they conceal their primary goal, which is making themselves look good. They contort and adopt anything they can find, ironically of course, to make themselves stand out in a crowd. This suggests they have no concept of being actual, functional human beings.

Men have suffered from the hipster because the hipster hates all real masculine values and wants to replace them with a simpering insincerity and obedience. The hipster is a slave to his woman and likes it, because he has insulated himself with irony. He’s not doing it because he believes in it. He’s half-mocking it and if it falls apart on him, he never cared. He was always free.

Men succeed when they have a unique role which only they can fulfill. They can then compete for improvement in this category. Men fail when the areas that men can be good at are replaced by areas in which only simpering, subservient, weak-chinned men thrive.

These hipsters and other socialites are distinct because they are inverted. They aren’t good at anything, except socializing. They define themselves by female interest and how hip they and their stupid dubstep-psychobilly bands are. These values are the opposite of male values.

Male values of the strong type are not based on what others think. They are based on results, on doing the right thing in complex situations that sometimes require bad things to be done to get good results. They are based on being proud, independent, and taking women when you are ready, not as gluttony.

Since you were born, a vast media establishment and the people you socialize with have been trying to drum a formula into your head: it’s not who you are that matters, but what other people think you are. This emasculating nonsense will make you into a hipster, and as hollow and purposeless as the 1990s.

Crowdism is a form of Individualism

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Crowdism is the opposite of parallelism, which is a kind of holism designed to take into account human perception of mind and body as separate. What’s crowdism?

The belief, whether known in language to its bearer or not, that the individual should predominate over all other concerns is Crowdism. We name it according to the crowd because crowds are the fastest to defend individual autonomy; if any of its members are singled out, and doubt thrown upon their activities or intentions, the crowd is fragmented and loses its power. What makes crowds strong is an inability of any to criticize their members, or to suggest any kind of goal that unites people, because what makes for the best crowds is a lack of goal. Without a higher vision or ideal, crowds rapidly degenerate into raiding parties, although of a passive nature. They argue for greater “freedom.” They want more wealth. Anything they see they feel should be divided up among the crowd.

Crowdism strikes anyone who values individual comfort and wealth more than doing what is right. People of a higher mindset leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. This requires that people form an abstraction describing how organization works, and create in themselves the moral will to do right, and thus embark on a path that is not accessible to everyone: the smarter and more clearsighted one is, the greater likelihood exists that one is realizing things that an audience of average people have not yet comprehended. For this reason, Crowdists hate people who leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. These people threaten to rise above the crowd, and thus fragment the crowd by revealing individual deficiencies again, and that steals the only method of power the crowd has: superior numbers and the illusion that everyone in the crowd is in agreement as to what must be done.

In short, a crowd does not exist except where underconfidence unites people who, being unable to lead on their own, find solace in the leadership and power of others. They want to be in control, but they are afraid to lead, and thus each person in the crowd delegates his authority to others. The crowd therefore moves not by choices, but by lowest common denominator, assessing each decision in terms of what all people in the crowd have in common. Predictably, this makes its decisions of such a base nature they can be guessed in advance. A crowd derives its momentum from the need of its members coupled with their fear of their own judgment. Taking impetus from the need, it asserts itself violently, but because its only mechanism of decision-making is radical compromise, it moves passively toward predictable resolutions.


Crowdism underlies all ideologies today. As Plato noted, as a society ages, its people become increasingly less aware of what is required to keep it operating. They take it for granted. And so they create power structures independent of reality, and therefore fragment that social consensus that originally brought people together into one whole organic group united by language, culture, values, customs and heritage.

Our society is currently Crowdist because it is aging rapidly, accelerated by technology, and it is in denial. Want to defeat Crowdism? Speak the truth. Get realistic language out there on the playing field. Make fun of the insane and point out the failures of those ideas in the past. And, in the words of Gandhi, “become the change you seek in the world.” Transcend your own drama. Look at life from a realistic vantage. Act for what is good and sane and not what is convenient or makes your friends laugh.

In a strange way, this is how you keep both your maturity and your childhood. You gain maturity by becoming a good organism and adapting to reality; you keep childhood by preserving your innocence by seeing only what you need to in reality, and keeping neurotic and deceptive adult behavior away. It’s not just victory for humanity, but victory for you.

Why I’m not in Austin for SXSW

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Let me count the ways.

  1. Austin, by being tolerant, encourages parasitism.

    Hey man, are you going to eat those fries?

    Does anyone have some change? Anything would help. I don’t have any money and any money I did have I just left in Seattle.

    Can I have a sip of your beer? We’re all in this SXSW thing together.

    — Brought to you by the committee for realism

    Posted by: The Real Austin Experience(tm) | Mar 15, 2009 6:57:39 AM


    A city that builds itself on the idea of tolerating everyone quickly encourages people to abuse that idea, since it’s brainless. You don’t want tolerance — you want to celebrate the good, and junk the bad, just like you do in every other part of life. Books? Keep the good, pitch the bad. Refrigerator? Keep the fresh, toss the stale. Ideas? Keep the realistic, eject the delusional. Friends? Keep the faithful, chuck the leechy.

    Austin is world famous for moochers. But these aren’t even good moochers. They’re “friends” who hit the bathroom when they see the bill coming from the register. Buddies who never bought a computer so need to use yours — five times a week. And random people on the street, many of whom are trust fund babies, who want to borrow a cigarette, have the fries you’re not yet eating, get a slice of your pizza, or just outright ask you for money. You can’t hit them because Austin is tolerant.

    No thank you. I already know that most honest homeless people are that way because they’re insane, criminal or stupid; a few just hate society almost as much as I hate a delusional, end-stage civilization. I don’t want to go someplace that legitimizes leechy behavior.

  2. Popular music is trivial crap

    In the 1980s, someone invented indie rock. Musically, it’s the same stuff the big label bands put out in the 1970s. But it’s on a small label. And artier, more selfconscious. So it must be new… and because it’s new, you need it, so you can talk to your friends about it. Right?

    No. I’ve broken free. True freedom consists of knowing what you want and throwing away the rest. I don’t want to enslave myself to the novelty of music that, when compared from a distance, is all basically the same stuff. I value my time and I want more from life.

    So you can take your SXSW and put it in the same place you put that Deerhoof CD.

  3. Austin is full of hipsters

    What is the disease of the modern time? Linear rational thought, or taking one aspect of a situation and comparing BEFORE and AFTER a process, and letting that single aspect stand for the many aspects of the situation.

    For example: I shot this deer and got a neat new deerhoof. But I am not thinking about the deer carcass rotting in the sun, the depletion of the deer population, the destruction of populations that depend on deer, or even where the bullet went after it sailed through the deer’s neck.

    The hipster pretends to be above all this, but because hipsterism is based on joining a crowd yet being an individual, it requires you to use a single aspect: external appearance.

    So hipsters flounce and mince past, each in some different “radical” (ho hum) combination of things that don’t fit together. Day-glo tennis shoes, ironic shirts, emo haircuts, makeup and random neckties. No thank you.

    I don’t want the trivial imposing it on me in any way. I don’t want network television, avoid advertisements if I can, duck out of vapid conversations and don’t buy junk products. My time is valuable; I’m not going to let anyone, even an anti-corporate hipster, impose on it with their trivial need for attention and control.

  4. Crowds spread contagion

    When you get people together, you are not going to get any kind of organized action unless there’s a leader.

    Crowds have no leader, and since that feels good because it means no rules, they behave like children to enforce that. Passive aggression in spades.

    The more people you have together, the more they’ll resist anything resembling a direction. It’s like you’re taking the consciousness of a person and dividing, not multiplying, it by the number of people there.

Thanks, Austin, but not thanks. I have a nice book, friends and family, and plenty of Deerhoof here if I ever need it. I can also mooch a bite of my own pizza, borrow a cigarette from myself, and blame someone else for my problems, and yet when I get over that moment of pique, I can live comfortably in reality without requiring the presence of others to make me feel my lifestyle choice was a legitimate one.

Recommended Reading