A Critical Overview of Dilbert
The Dilbert guy, Scott Adams, has been an interesting chunk of pop culture. Whether he intended to or not--or rather, whether he was intended to, or not--he's been a great trend capturer, in the sense that he brands himself as the originator of trends he didn't create (in a more specific way than we all do). He's the humble voice of office dissent from the cubicle, who takes credit for originating the gossip-cum-revenue that he sketched out of coffee-room & mailed-in anecdotes (great business, bad art [not in the sense of bad illustration, which is of suitable quality for newspaper/online comics of the local twenty-first]).
Does he believe, like Rowling believes, that it was his unique genius or hard work that caused United Media to select him as Anti-Establishment Cartoonist #1,468 in 1989? He's probably aware that he's part of some long tradition of serfs hating their overseers while themselves venerating the feudal system, and its imaginary gods, which is why he has no problem being such an effective capitalist now that he has the capital to go with his lack of scruples. And good for him! Like all soulrotted jesters, any seeming mistake he makes can be rationalized as mere performance heart, which he employed only as a Rorschach, and which he doesn't stand behind.
In that regard, Adams has always been a useful barometer. (And a fun one, to be sure. Like the stereotypical traveling critic--a Seinfeld or a Bacharach--it's fun, in its own little way, to watch someone mock the rabble, and the ways that they deal with the rituals governing their lives. It's conducive to myopia, delusions of grandeur, and all the other things from which we already suffer in the soulless Orioccident, and unlike Rowling, Scott Adams really puts on a good show--although, unlike Rowling, he already told his last joke in the early nineties, and there's nothing more for CEO Voldemort to do.
The fact that United Media began publishing Adams' pseudo-anti-corporate stuff at the inception of full American hegemony--as H.W. Bush fought to keep Venona from public knowledge, so that people wouldn't realize the Soviets had won in 1945--telegraphs elite intentions to use Dilbert as controlled opposition to the catastrophic inanities of modern gulag life. Like Venona, the bullshittery of progress-impeding corporate culture had been known to its orchestrators the entire time, and like Bush's stifling of Yeltsin's offers to return aging POWs, Dilbert was pressure-release; repainting the Bastille without storming it, to use Enlightenment-preferred language. Ever since Adams' comic became another emblematically non-rebellious American rebellion, in which nothing is done but much is purchased, and Adams proved himself to be a money-hungry marketer rather than someone who cared to help non-selves, the bland, salmon-colored-hotel-curtains nature of tweaking Middle Management's nose has proven itself as manageable as Paul McCartney or American Beauty. Adams melded perfectly with the establishment, parroting ineffectual self-help books, and the kind of neurotic, faux-self-deprecating Freudian humor that Woody Allen uses as an inside stab against high-trust societies.
Like Rowling, his critique of muggles and employees, dark wizards and chief executives, had nothing behind it: now the establishment himself, he's a hollow scarecrow; neither destroyer nor builder on the battlefield of life, but the foulest survivor hidden in plain sight; the looter who picks through the bodies while scathing the worthlessness of bravery on either side. A post among the new anti-PC PC is his reward for not rocking the boat. He dabbles in paranormal studies, economic predictions, and social commentary, but all with the shield of being a mere entertainer who cannot be held accountable for his views, since everything's just a joke. Like Arka said, "It's just a blog, man--stop harshing my buzz."
Overton Signaling Through Selected Entertainment
Adams, throughout his public career, has been useful. He's kind of the "right wing" version of JK Rowling, in that, when he says something, you know it's the media-acceptable way of being rightist, just like Rowling does the opposite for the left. When Rowling says something, you know it's been manured to well-meaning perfection. She was too dimwitted to have introduced openly gay characters when she actually wrote her book--all she remembered to do was to add a couple token Blacks and an Asian or two--but after she'd fallen safely into the spotlight, she retroactively turned Hogwarts into a multikulti safe space that she dearly, dearly wished she'd actually written it as back when it would've almost been edgy to have done so. (Of course, it would've raised more cultural challenges to Potter's early widespread distribution, so maybe Rowling is more intelligent and more evil than I've given her credit for. That, or she's just vacuous. My pretend-money's on the latter, given that a more intelligent, more evil person would've had trouble suffering through the vacuity of producing so much Potter, which is why they hired Rowling to do it.)
Adams, the Overton's counterpart pseudo-rightist representative, has offered useful counterpart signaling throughout his career. Whenever he took notice of something, it was a sign that it became publicly acceptable to take notice of it. Media corporations honored his strip by selecting it as one of the first venues to begin releasing the pressure of political correctness. Others had done it before, both more mildly and stronger, but were ignored or demolished; when Dilbert did it, it was a sign that the elite message was changing--neither courageous nor innovative, but safely sanctioned, just like when Rowling postliterhumously outed Dumbledore. Similarly, Adams' critiques of white middle managers, and his championing of salaried white engineers, seemed--like Marxism, a.k.a. fool's anticapitalism--to be a rebellious position, but was actually a more effective condemnation of actual people than the supposed status quo. Ultimately, early Dilbert and Wally spent more time goofing off and avoiding work than they did resisting corporate directives, and their performances justified more condemnation of them and those like them than they did empathy or reward--unless you're a lazy ferret yourself. Calling Dilbert a blow against unfair management is like calling Animal House a blow against college administration--the deeper message in each case is that the students/employees are lazy fools anyway, so burn it all down. In America, that's a temptingly appropriate message, unless you're cognizant of actual people trying to actually do well by actually producing useful things, in order that they can feed themselves and maintain a healthy society. Haha, yeah, those damned uppity college students take the path of least resistance, and they're always getting involved in "movements" and stuff. But why should enjoyment, camaraderie, learning, and the desire and ability to positively influence the world be scorned? The primary effectiveness of putting evil academics into Weimerican universities wasn't radicalizing students, but in causing non-students to reject the healthy, natural urges that the academics had misdirected.
That was Marx' trick, too. By blaming all capital for the actions of finance capital, Marx used the vile actions of his "French" and "British" financial cronies to slur the reputation of industrial capitalists, thereby encouraging people to take out their wrath on local manufacturers or artisans who saved money earned from direct personal transactions in useful goods, rather than distant policymakers who acquired rents through taxes and trade policy. The Dilbert scheme, like Portlandia and countless other modern satires selected and promoted by the great Zionist media companies, sold itself as a redemption of the American worker, while actually portraying the crumbling American economy as being due to SWPL crap, rather than showing the truth: that the goldbricking, the goofing off, the micromanaging, the team-building retreats, et cetera, were all the logical and necessary responses to fiscal and social policies crafted at the highest levels of corporate and political governance. SWPLs don't simply appear out of nowhere; they appear when their freedoms of movement, association, and other behavior have been so restricted that stuff like kayak-signaling is all they have left. God knows I enjoy a kayak-signaling joke as much as the next goy, but the world is more complex than that.
The Staged Trump?
The latest American presidential election has offered a counter-Hussein effect, in that Donald Trump's suggestion of turning back the 1965 Displacement Immigration Act seems like a genuine challenge to the War Party. His occasional hints that he wouldn't be guided by AIPAC into continuing imperial warfare, and the resulting blowback from confirmed sellouts and war criminals everywhere, suggests that there is something positive about a Trump presidency. The prospects of not initiating another world war, not committing another Fallujah, and not blockade-starving another million Africans, are massively impressive ones, whatever else one might think about "student loan debt" or other comparatively minor stuff.
Adams, though, has become something of a Trump supporter. And as one of the subtlest barometers out there (his career is really well designed for reaching a certain type of Outer Party member; particularly if you read current business and investment stuff, Adams is as much of an operative for some people as that Daily Kos creature is for others), Adams' somewhat-endorsement is interesting for what it may reveal about the outcome planned for Trump. Recently, Adams approvingly reprinted this letter from one of his fans, calling it "beautiful":
To: President TrumpEven if you like everything about Trump, that presentation should give you pause. Firstly, it's fake--whether faked by an actual fan of Adams, or by Adams himself as a ploy, or by a clever anti-Trump blogger trying to feed Adams the perfect setup. The pacing, the subject matter, the careful yet brief summary of confessional life experience followed by revelation followed by salvation: it's so clever that it forgot to be clever, in that it hit every high point so properly it reeks of plastic. Weimericans are adapting themselves to think and communicate like screenwriters, but most of them can't do it nearly this well. The person who composed it isn't a master, though; he thought the occasional use of ellipses would translate into "Uncertainty...just like a real person would write!" but he was wrong. (Of course, when you're targeting Outer Party, you don't want to write like a master, since Outer Party sneers at genuine Prole dialect, so I conditionally withdraw my judgment, if that was the intention.)
From: Just a simple man
I’ve been following your campaign since your announcement, reading millions of words written about you, watching thousands of hours of video and speeches, listening to many talk radio show segments, and engaging in dozens of debates with people around me.
No candidate has ever captured my attention the way you have.
Now that it’s clear you will be the Republican nominee, I want to share with you something so personal, painful, and uplifting, that I almost don’t want to write it, but I will anyway…trolls be damned:
My whole life, up until yesterday, has been based on reaction to fear.
Growing up as a black man in Washington D.C. during the “crack 80’s”, when Marion Barry was mayor, I lived a lower middle class childhood in one of the most dangerous cities in America. Though I had many friends, I was also subject to the threats, intimidation, and bullying that happens when you’re not like the people around you.
There was no father in my life to steel me against the world I lived in. My mother was strong, but it’s not exactly the kind of strength I needed. I was a boy, and needed a Man.
Without strong male guidance, I learned to fear…but not how to face fear and win. Even joining the military and going to war didn’t overcome my weakness, and all my future decisions considered strongly the level of fear I had at the time.
As a result, my life has been full of conflict, as I have unintentionally signaled to adversaries that I am an easier opponent to beat than others. I have won victories, but never truly enjoyed them knowing the battle is never won for me…only endured. I have also suffered crushing defeats, and important people in my life lost confidence in me as a result. I have not reached my potential, and settled instead into apathy and stasis, content to only being “smart enough” or “good enough”…not great. Not strong. Not resolute…
Not a leader. Not a winner.
My life, in many important ways, mirrors the American experience. Potential to be great, but paralyzed by fear. Full of conflict. Enduring, not winning. No leadership. No strong Male inspiration. And occasional, crushing defeats that hit to the core of our country…most notably 9/11, but also with the erosion of our middle class and uniquely American culture.
Like you say so often: we don’t WIN anymore.
Watching your campaign, and being as invested in it as I am, has been an exercise in recognizing, and confronting, fear that I never expected. Every time your opponents hit you…I feel fear for your candidacy and our country. Every charge of racist, sexist, facist, etc. causes me to worry that no one, not even you, can really change the country for the better. That we’re doomed to failure…
Then…inevitably…you win the battle. You don’t “survive”, or “endure”…you attack, and put fear into your opponents. You don’t stop until they are buried under your feet. Until they become paralyzed…
Sometimes, you even bait them into hitting you, just so you can beat the crap out of them again. Your life is full of conflict, but it becomes yet another opportunity to WIN, and makes you MORE powerful…not less.
Then, once they are eliminated as a threat, you are generous to the vanquished. It’s not personal, and they are not evil. They were, simply…in the way. Once they are not, they become worthy of kindness and respect.
Furthermore, you’re not just a blunt instrument…your strategy is impeccable. You go into every conflict knowing exactly what your opponents weaknesses are, how to exploit them, and what levers to pull to ensure victory. Clearly, you spend good time before announcing your candidacy doing the things the military taught me as a young soldier: surveying, recon, intelligence-gathering, ammunition, discipline, execution…
You are defending America from our enemies within, and it’s an AMAZING thing to watch.
Last night, you also did something else. You became the Man that helped me see fear for what it is: an illusion of power, a powerful teacher, and the path to winning if used properly. There is no reason, regardless of the enormity of the task, to lose to fear if you prepare well, are disciplined in your execution, and have the faith necessary, in God, yourself, and in others…that leads to victory.
Winning is always possible, but becomes probable if you never back down, never quit, and become your dominant self. Once the battle is won, treat the vanquished with kindness and respect. Be the bigger man.
You taught me how to Win.
I appreciate what you’ve done for me personally, and what you’re doing for our country. I know I’m not the only man who admires you, and can’t wait for you to become the father, and leader, of our country. It’s been a long, cold winter for men in America the last 8 years, and I believe that your election will dramatically improve the level of respect, admiration, and love people will show for strong men and Fathers, and will create a new generation of leaders from impressionable young boys.
That, more than anything, will Make America Great Again.
Secondly, the "be the father I never had" thing reeks of Big Brother. Is this meant to suggest that Trump is going to fail because he's just an Alpha player who's gaming the White nationalists of America, but wiser minds will see through him? Was the letter meant to suggest that Trump is not a real leader, but a daddy-substitute for the androgynous soydudes of rapeistan? That kind of emotionally insecure plea may stir the hearts of Weimerica's benighted betas, while signaling to the more intelligent--historians of next century, if not political analysts of next year--that Trump, and everything he was about, were manifestations of inner failure, rather than results of coherent policy decisions made by thinking groups.
In presenting this letter, did Adams mean to cunningly denigrate support for Trump? Is he such a good operative that he wants Outer Party to think Trump is a mere security blanket for the sick? If so, that cuts in Trump's favor, because it means the elite is actually scared.
Or, is Adams actually that sappily stupid, and he thinks that it's good for atomized postmodern androgynes to empathize with a state-based father figure like Big Brother, who will scare away all the monsters from under the bed? That's fine, because Adams and his readers could be that dim, without it affecting Trump.
Worst of all would be if Adams is clever, and is using this to stir up excited Proles and Outer Party in support of that father figure, because Trump is the new Big Brother, and we're supposed to accept him that way, even if we're not so broken inside that we need Daddy Mao to punish us because we've been bad.
Let's close with some general Trump questions:
Is Trump, with substantial Zionist connections and a shiksa daughter, another candidate for Saudi Israelia, meant to set back BDS and BRICS by using feigned nationalism to bring Russia around to the Zionist point of view? Is the Zionist/establishment media ferocity against him (which is admittedly childish and overwrought) being performed on purpose to inspire potential dissidents to cotton to someone whose anti-immigrant Cheka will ultimately vanish local troublemakers under the cover of deporting illegals?
In this possibility, Trump is just another step higher up the dictator staircase than Bush or Obama. Like Obama used his sort-of blackness to make himself seem like a rebellion against Bush's cowboy bullshit, Trump's rich WASPness counters Obama, while increasing executive power. The gradual democratic transition to totalitarianism achieves another step, yawn.
Is Trump a Manchurian candidate unaware of his own purpose? E.g., does he actually believe in everything he's saying/doing, but he's being permitted to defeat cardboard opposition because Saudi Israelia has realized that North Brazil won't be able to fund its genocide like the U.S. was? In this possibility, Saudi Israelia is willing to accept resurgent Europeoid nationalism because it knows it needs perpetual annuities in the quantity that only Europeoid nations can generate. Trump will build a border wall and a thriving economy so that Saudi Israelia can keep leeching money off a wealthy U.S., tricking NATO into massacring this or that Arab population, etc., and in return, America will be permitted freedom of speech and association again.
This possibility seems unlikely, because They know that such nationalism would create confidence sufficient to soon cut off the leeching, leaving Saudi Israelia prey for Nemesis.
Or is Trump actually Trump, a rich but currently-honest bastard who actually saw an underserved market of voters and went for it? And, once he takes office and gets let in on all the super-secret spy-things that Presidents know, will he suddenly realize the unspeakable necessity of garrisoning the world and building wood-frame subdivisions in Gaza, and it'll be just like everyone else who was president before? And if he realizes he can't do anything with the Fed still there, will he try to remove it, and a new John Hinckley, Jr. will need to be tapped to clear him out?
And are they considering letting John Hinckley, Jr. out just in case Trump wins? What movie will they pretend he was inspired by this time? "I was trying to impress Optimus Prime"?