Oh dear oh dear! Oh No! A couple days ago Alistair Stewart, a newsreader on ITN in Britain, issued a Shakespeare quote that included the word "ape." Now he has been fired for racism.
Let me say here that I am a profound racist. I believe that race is real, and I believe that everyone must live with that reality.
And, as they say, we are all descended from the apes. Bless their hearts.
But in the United States and in the United Kingdom racial discriminaton is illegal.
That means that government actors and corporate actors are not allowed to discriminate against minorities and women on the basis of race or sex.
Although in practice, governments and corporations the world over are encouraged to discriminate against white men on behalf of women and minorities, and are named and shamed if they don't. Yeah. You tell me.
But here I want to say. What does it matter what people say? On Twitter, or anywhere else? If racial discrimination is illegal, that is final. (As President Coolidge said in a different context.)
And if, 50 years after the Civil Rights Act blacks are paid less than whites then, if they are actually being paid less than they are worth there is an opportunity for what the speculators call arbitrage. An opportunity to make money. And since people that hire minorities acquire status in today's society...
Yeah. Imagine the kudos to be obtained by creating a company that exploits the arbitrage between what minorities and women are paid and what they are worth. There must be billions, trillions of dollars to be made in that market!
Here's another thing. Black men in the arts and on the streets these days are notorious for their testosterone culture of "rap" which celebrates the rough tough hombre that is fearless and projects masculine power.
So why do blacks need protection from the ruling class? Aren't they already rough and tough enough to take care of themselves?
I mean, do blacks need the cultural protection of ruling class apparatchiks to go about their daily business safely? In addittion to the protection of the Civil Rights laws? Are they sissies? I mean, if they are to be free and equal then they surely must ache to demonstrate it by dispensing with the clammy grip of ruling-class hangers-on and bravely going about in the world without that ruling-class security detail.
And anyway, getting on Twitter and complaining that "Johnny looked at me" is girl stuff. Are all lefty activists really girly boys? (Don't answer that!)
Let me say here that I am a profound sexist. I believe that sex is real. Also gender. Also the next twist that girly lefty activists come up with.
I mean. All you girls are superheroes, right? You can get on movies and TV and kick and overwhelm men twice your size with your amazing martial-arts superhero skills, Right?
So why do you girly girls and girly men not use your amazing superhero skills and instead do the Community of Women's Culture of Complaint thing that appeals to the nearest man to protect you? Which presumes that you are not in fact the superheroes you claim to be but are in fact, despite the legal protections of the Civil Rights laws and the actual political and cultural power of the ruling class, weak helpless girly girls and girly boys that really aren't ready for prime time.
When black artists strut their stuff they are saying that they are ready to defend themselves in the public square without the assistance of a security detail from the ruling class.
When women twitter on about Girl Power they are saying that they do not need the protection of a father or a husband from the patriarchy of which you've heard tell. Right, girls?
But when some poor chap gets canceled for racism because of a tweet, then we are saying that blacks are helpless forever more.
Which means that we may as well cancel the Civil Rights laws and all the cultural apparatus that protects and inflates blacks. Because they can never be equal, not without the guns and truncheons of the ruling class. They are second-class citizens forever. Because reasons.
See, the point of good old Worcester saying in Henry IV Part One, that
Let me say here that I am a profound racist. I believe that race is real, and I believe that everyone must live with that reality.
And, as they say, we are all descended from the apes. Bless their hearts.
But in the United States and in the United Kingdom racial discriminaton is illegal.
That means that government actors and corporate actors are not allowed to discriminate against minorities and women on the basis of race or sex.
Although in practice, governments and corporations the world over are encouraged to discriminate against white men on behalf of women and minorities, and are named and shamed if they don't. Yeah. You tell me.
But here I want to say. What does it matter what people say? On Twitter, or anywhere else? If racial discrimination is illegal, that is final. (As President Coolidge said in a different context.)
And if, 50 years after the Civil Rights Act blacks are paid less than whites then, if they are actually being paid less than they are worth there is an opportunity for what the speculators call arbitrage. An opportunity to make money. And since people that hire minorities acquire status in today's society...
Yeah. Imagine the kudos to be obtained by creating a company that exploits the arbitrage between what minorities and women are paid and what they are worth. There must be billions, trillions of dollars to be made in that market!
Here's another thing. Black men in the arts and on the streets these days are notorious for their testosterone culture of "rap" which celebrates the rough tough hombre that is fearless and projects masculine power.
So why do blacks need protection from the ruling class? Aren't they already rough and tough enough to take care of themselves?
I mean, do blacks need the cultural protection of ruling class apparatchiks to go about their daily business safely? In addittion to the protection of the Civil Rights laws? Are they sissies? I mean, if they are to be free and equal then they surely must ache to demonstrate it by dispensing with the clammy grip of ruling-class hangers-on and bravely going about in the world without that ruling-class security detail.
And anyway, getting on Twitter and complaining that "Johnny looked at me" is girl stuff. Are all lefty activists really girly boys? (Don't answer that!)
Let me say here that I am a profound sexist. I believe that sex is real. Also gender. Also the next twist that girly lefty activists come up with.
I mean. All you girls are superheroes, right? You can get on movies and TV and kick and overwhelm men twice your size with your amazing martial-arts superhero skills, Right?
So why do you girly girls and girly men not use your amazing superhero skills and instead do the Community of Women's Culture of Complaint thing that appeals to the nearest man to protect you? Which presumes that you are not in fact the superheroes you claim to be but are in fact, despite the legal protections of the Civil Rights laws and the actual political and cultural power of the ruling class, weak helpless girly girls and girly boys that really aren't ready for prime time.
When black artists strut their stuff they are saying that they are ready to defend themselves in the public square without the assistance of a security detail from the ruling class.
When women twitter on about Girl Power they are saying that they do not need the protection of a father or a husband from the patriarchy of which you've heard tell. Right, girls?
But when some poor chap gets canceled for racism because of a tweet, then we are saying that blacks are helpless forever more.
Which means that we may as well cancel the Civil Rights laws and all the cultural apparatus that protects and inflates blacks. Because they can never be equal, not without the guns and truncheons of the ruling class. They are second-class citizens forever. Because reasons.
See, the point of good old Worcester saying in Henry IV Part One, that
It was myself, my brother and his son,
That brought you home and boldly did outdare
The dangers of the time.
is to declare that the essence of male honor, which is courage, is to boldly outdare whatever might happen to be the dangers of the time.
But to be a man of color, already protected by the Civil Right laws of every clime, and whine that "Johnny looked at me" is to say that "I am a helpless subordinate slave and nothing will ever change that, not laws, not cultural support from the ruling class, not principalities, not powers: nothing."
I don't think that was the idea back in the day. I don't think that civil rights activists imagined that 50 years later, with the protection of the laws and the cultural support of the ruling class, there would be a need to cancel TV anchormen for a Shakespeare quote.
And if they did, they shoulda told us.
Actually, of course, equality is a lie and always will be. There always was a hierarchy, an order of rank, and always will be. That is the point that Jordan B. Peterson is trying to make to girly girls in the media with his reference to lobsters. Hierarchy is coded into lobsters, honey. You think that we humans can un-code something that is so deeply coded within us that it got expressed in primitive creatures like lobsters?
And the point of hierarchy is to reduce violence, so that animals need not contest every incident in their lives, but can live in peace.
The point is: how shall hierarchy be determined, who shall regulate it, and what kind of escape from hierarchy is beneficial and allowable?
Got any ideas on that, precious?
Right now, we have a pitiless hierarchy based on whether you can get Mommy at Twitter to cancel your rivals. Conservatives need not apply.
What does that mean? Does it mean that conservatives are brutes? Or does it mean that the Little Darlings of the ruling class are pathetic sissies?
And what does it mean if you are the kind to run to Mommy and are not willing to establish your position in the status hierarchy without adult assistance?
It must not escape the notice of every sentient human that it was the most extreme advocates of equality that gave us the slave states of the 20th century and the most severe political and economic hierarchies.
So it might be that an excessive concern for equality might be a problem.
This would not suprise us Hegel scholars, who understand that the thing is pretty well the reflection of its opposite. But some of you naïve others might not be so well prepared to boldly outdare the dangers of the time where opposites are concerned.
Here's the fact of the matter. If you are a Little Darling, in the special care of the ruling class, then you are advertising to the world that you are not yet ready for prime time. You need a safe space, and you are less than you should be.
But if you want to tread the world as a citizen, as an equal to any other, then you must accept the challenge of making your own space and defending it without the power and might of the ruling class.
Or, to put it another way, there is no way out of getting out there and fighting for your status in the hierarchy.
Otherwise you are just the Little Darling, the subordinate serf of the ruling class, protected so long as you discharge you duties as its loyal subject, and not a moment longer.
But to be a man of color, already protected by the Civil Right laws of every clime, and whine that "Johnny looked at me" is to say that "I am a helpless subordinate slave and nothing will ever change that, not laws, not cultural support from the ruling class, not principalities, not powers: nothing."
I don't think that was the idea back in the day. I don't think that civil rights activists imagined that 50 years later, with the protection of the laws and the cultural support of the ruling class, there would be a need to cancel TV anchormen for a Shakespeare quote.
And if they did, they shoulda told us.
Actually, of course, equality is a lie and always will be. There always was a hierarchy, an order of rank, and always will be. That is the point that Jordan B. Peterson is trying to make to girly girls in the media with his reference to lobsters. Hierarchy is coded into lobsters, honey. You think that we humans can un-code something that is so deeply coded within us that it got expressed in primitive creatures like lobsters?
And the point of hierarchy is to reduce violence, so that animals need not contest every incident in their lives, but can live in peace.
The point is: how shall hierarchy be determined, who shall regulate it, and what kind of escape from hierarchy is beneficial and allowable?
Got any ideas on that, precious?
Right now, we have a pitiless hierarchy based on whether you can get Mommy at Twitter to cancel your rivals. Conservatives need not apply.
What does that mean? Does it mean that conservatives are brutes? Or does it mean that the Little Darlings of the ruling class are pathetic sissies?
And what does it mean if you are the kind to run to Mommy and are not willing to establish your position in the status hierarchy without adult assistance?
It must not escape the notice of every sentient human that it was the most extreme advocates of equality that gave us the slave states of the 20th century and the most severe political and economic hierarchies.
So it might be that an excessive concern for equality might be a problem.
This would not suprise us Hegel scholars, who understand that the thing is pretty well the reflection of its opposite. But some of you naïve others might not be so well prepared to boldly outdare the dangers of the time where opposites are concerned.
Here's the fact of the matter. If you are a Little Darling, in the special care of the ruling class, then you are advertising to the world that you are not yet ready for prime time. You need a safe space, and you are less than you should be.
But if you want to tread the world as a citizen, as an equal to any other, then you must accept the challenge of making your own space and defending it without the power and might of the ruling class.
Or, to put it another way, there is no way out of getting out there and fighting for your status in the hierarchy.
Otherwise you are just the Little Darling, the subordinate serf of the ruling class, protected so long as you discharge you duties as its loyal subject, and not a moment longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment