Wolff response log, 8/31/11, Part 2

(Continued from this.)

The acid test of (the western, German-derived, authority model) colleges and universities would seem to be the improvement they offer society. Given that the most influential nations of the world are run by people educated under this model at these institutions, and that said nations are currently in the process of economically exploiting the world, mass-imprisoning their own citizens, and spawning death, destruction and catastrophic pollution of the only human habitat we currently have the capability of dwelling in--among other things--that test seems to indicate failure.

Throwing degrees at people (or even actually educating some of the poor, if such were the result of these university educations) is a proven failure, mathematically speaking, when we consider that the leadership of the powerful nations is almost wholly university educated. Even if scholarships quadrupled education in South Africa (or America) would the resulting leaders be any different?

Does job-training work when there are no available jobs? Will a bunch of more-educated sans culottes (again, even if that were the actual result) be able to motivate the Pentagon to stop shredding children apart? Is the history of American intelligence operations' connections to universities worldwide forgotten, or never learned?

The subtle implication of scholarship programs is often a paternalistic (Orientalism for Africa!) finger-waggling: if you would just send more of your students to universities, you wouldn't have these problems! I.e., these problems are your fault--not the result of, say, the IMF, the World Bank, or centuries of colonialism/foreign intervention/pick-your-term.

Of course, the American underclass demonstrates the flaw as well. Scholarships, universities, colleges and "opportunities" abound. Almost the entire society gushes about formal education as some manner of solution. Yet, again, the American underclass exists. Should we be striving to turn South Africa into America? Black America, to use one example, has infant mortality rates comparable to, shall we say, less industrialized nations.

Wolff response log, 8/31/11

Response to Robert Wolff's plea for his charity to send more South Africans to universities.

(Aside from the treacherous social impact of charity tax policy, which has as its nexus churches, I now sardonize--)

This charity is a good idea. If only more of our presidents, congresspeople, influential media figures and policymakers had gone to universities, we would have a chance at solving the problems in our world.

Warrior

Seen on Facebook:

Wow! It only took Hollywood a century or so to realize that some people like MMA. Like Warrior, starring some actors who trained for the roles, for exclusive updates!

That, and this ("early cage fighters").

(The "fights for country" bit in the movie preview, with associated shots of White Man Charging Into Dusty Climes To Fight Ay-rabs, is particularly telling. Yes, physically-authoritative occupations lend themselves to MMA training; I've rolled with SWAT, BP, miscellaneous bdu services, a Ranger and a horde of cops. But MMA champions, such as those in giant, popular fights a la the conclusion of this latest Hollywood hit-to-be, tend to be people training full-time, not deployed full-time. This one thinks they cast their characters for a reason. Say it ain't so!)

Ioz response log

Response to this.

What helps them call Bachman uniquely crazy is her expressions. Unlike Obama, who has approximately three expressions for all occasions (including victory, setbacks, Senate teleconferences, children's birthday parties, carpet bombing, nice to meet you), Bachman has an expressive face, so it's easy (no photoshop required!) to get a snapshot of her looking fervent. And actually believing something, or appearing to believe something, is the craziest thing of all, because actual believers, as opposed to willing deceivers, can occasionally be encouraged by their beliefs to take antisystem actions.

Wolff Thread continues

Continuing response to a selected quote below, found here.

Wolff: "I think that if commentators are going to be gratuitously insulting, simple courtesy requires that they use their own names so that I know who it is that is insulting me. To do anything else is simply cowardly and despicable."

Onward ho:

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Do remember, though, that not all of us have tenure or pensions.

Let me also qualify my previous post by adding, "Wolff doesn't care about it [enough to cease supporting it, although he may care on an abstract level]."

I'll also say, "High Arka doesn't care about it enough to cease trying to maintain his own life within the system." Don't take it personally--judgment cuts all ways. The operative question is, are you paying your taxes only because they'd throw you in prison if you didn't, or because you wish to support what they do with your taxes?

When/if voting becomes mandatory, I'll have a decision to make about whether or not to vote. At such point, voting will no longer be an unnecessary, proactive act in favor of evil. Similarly, when/if appearing at a rally or speaking out in favor of the leaders becomes mandatory, I'll have another decision to make.

You go a step beyond that, supporting Obama's crusade in numerous optional ways, including the swaying of others' opinions toward his aggregation of power and his ultimate use of it to create terror and death. (Obama, the Party, the Establishment, the MIC, the US; take your pick.) Because you do so from the vantage point of the leisured and economically successful, who even less than others can argue no way out, your willingness to sacrifice the lives of the unlucky takes on an even sharper cast.

Thread continues under Wolff

Response to a selection below that originated from this.

From Chris: "Wait, Akra, I think there's some confusion here. I agree with everything you said, so I don't think I'm missing the point?"

The unfortunate point here is that, as a commentator already mentioned, Wolff doesn't care. Attempting to sway him with morals--death tolls, aggregated human suffering, et cetera--will have no more effect than attempting to sway Obama. In a very important way, Wolff is Obama. He, like the rest of the gears of the death machine, will not be successfully reasoned with through a citation to morals. He already knows what's going on, and has accepted and rationalized it.

Response to Wolff

Response to a response (by one "Chris") to this post.

Chris, I think you're missing the point. Well-heeled Democrats care more for the death of dolphins than for the mass death (and/or torture) of the little brown people far away, unless said mass death occurred enough years ago that it can be analyzed from a safe distance as something we have proof we're beyond because we elected (quotation marks omitted) a Black Leader (TM).

They feel this way because Obama ultimately serves their interests. Little brutalities such as "more war, torture, imperialism, bailouts for the rich" (notice your last category of content) are necessary to keep going the system that has rewarded them. Token adherence to preapproved talking points, such as the female vote a few years back, or pro-black (but decidedly not pro- all Others) stances now, are illusory references provided to keep you calm enough to avoid rebellion. They are not, in fact, the signs of thought kinship that, in a sea of horrors, you are hoping you've found. In essence, the great Philosopher is wearing the same color of shirt as you because he hopes it will keep you from noticing that he does everything else your acknowledged enemies do.

Accountable Talk response log 8/18/2011

Response to this.

I think your list misses the (subtle?) point that the ed deformers are cognizant of what they're doing. Much like the apparent "hypocrisies" of the conservatives in the list that inspired you, continuing to respond to the movement as genuine and hypocritical rather than a deliberate assault will ever miss the mark.

After all, how successful has it been to spend decades snickering over poor red-staters' support to the death of their wealthy tyrant overlords' right to pay at a lower tax rate than they? Did it ever get the point across to them that they are really only hurting themselves? No? That's because what they actually want, even if they don't know it, is to be serfs ruled by tyrant overlords. Similarly, what the ed deformers actually want is the results they're getting. They're not "well meaning but consistently dumb." Rather, they're beating the pants off those of us who care because they have a goal and they're pursuing it.

(This one's post, nach, is itself ironic. Nonetheless, here we all speak.)