Stumpside Chats #2
The reality of liberal dialogue, changes therein, and the inconsistencies thereof. [Mar 15, 2024]
Slight preface: I plan on writing a sort of formal defense of the Enlightenment here at some point, aimed at some of the unmerited critiques of the Enlightenment that /ourguys/ tend to make. Not going to get into it here, but I figured it’s worth pointing out that the liberalism of today is literally nothing like classical liberalism (which is just Libertarianism, essentially).
Anyhow, I’m probably the most engrossed in contemporary liberal discourse out of any of /ourguys/, at least on iFunny. My major is history, which as you all know is extraordinarily ZOGed, and my minor is literally “Justice and Equity Studies” (look, my advisor said it’s good for pre-law students, ok?) and as I mentioned last week I have started editing for a sociology podcast produced by a professor at my school. At the time of writing I have edited two podcasts, each about an hour long and involving some fairly big names in the field. I have a direct pipeline to many well known academics, either because they are my professors or because of this podcast. Basically my entire courseload is just constant liblarp to the umpteenth degree.
Basically all of my classes, including almost all my electives, have been history, philosophy, political science, or sociology. All my classmates are libfarts, except for one Fascist dude (who reads my Substacks teehee), as are all my professors. I go out of my way to enroll in the most ZOGed classes possible. I’ve taken a class on slavery, one the Holobunga, and I am currently taking one Israel and Palestine, just to name some specifically history classes. I’ve also taken a class called “Philosophy of Race” which was literally entirely comprised of neo-Marxists who were either a racial or sexual minority or both (I was literally the only straight White dude in the class). Several of my professors have expressed to me their belief that Republicans/Conservatives are inherently bigoted and hate education. The chair of my department once told me that Thurgood Marshall was “an actually good liberal SCOTUS Justice” and not “like” Clarence Thomas.
So yeah, I’m pretty friggin qualified to talk about what liberal academics think. I’m pretty good at blending in with them as well. I go to as many department events as I can, I keep a vaguely centrist stance on politics, but throw in stuff like how “I’m a socialist” (lol) to give them a false sense of what I believe. I don’t think they even suspect that I’m registered as a Republican, much less that I am literally a Fascist. So all that is to say that not only do I know what they say, but I know they aren’t trying to hide anything from me because they confide their political beliefs in me all the time.
And I have learned a lot. That is, after all, why I do it. I don’t mind blending in and liblarping 24/7, because I learn more about how the liberal thinks, and how to manipulate them. And I want to share a few of these observations with you today.
First of all, I want you to understand that these people aren’t liberals. Not only are they not liberals in the original, Enlightenment, sense of the term, but they are not even like Neal Deal liberals. These people are all either explicitly Marxist or unknowingly (closeted, even) Marxists. Their entire worldview is dominated by Marxian theories of oppression. Everything is about analyzing minorities and how “oppressed” they are, to a neurotic degree. But this is not news to you. What may surprise you, however, is that these people do LITERALLY think that some sort of shadowy cabal of White supremacists run the world, and have since the 1500s. I started writing this post because I was editing the podcast and both the interviewer and interviewee agreed that we lived in a world dominated by and international cabal of White supremacists. A point of discussion in the podcast was that police in Baltimore and in London are learning, from each other, how to better oppress minorities. Direct quote from le podcast: “I think we are moving towards a neo-feudal society.” @Verc and
#Winning
The Boomers were all correct about college; it is LITERALLY full of communists.
The one thing that’s falling apart (at least partially), however, is the idea that we are all the same. We all know that the libs obsession with race politics is not consistent with their insistence that race is not “real” and is in fact made up as a form of oppression. Many GOP candidates have tried the old “you’re a hypocrite” shtick in response to this. But, at least some of them are starting to realize that racial differences do exist (although they won’t ever concede racial IQ). Again, this came up in the podcast as I was editing it. I found this quite shocking. In that Philosophy of Race class I mentioned earlier, we spent weeks discussing all the ways race doesn’t “exist” and how it is just an arbitrary definition used to divide the masses, like that one stupid meme that lolberts like to post. So hearing that even just these few academics have started to say otherwise has been quite jarring. Now of course I expect them to gloss over the genetic side of things; the podcast was talking more about cultural factors, but the genetic aspect is ultimately inescapable if you are going to acknowledge that different races have different cultures. Without a genetic foundation for race, and instead a purely cultural one, you have to concede that so-called “wiggers” are just as black as Tyrone, and they will never do this.
There are some pretty universal trends, though. For example, the prevailing narrative of cops racially profiling black people (which has been thoroughly debunked) Little side note, Roland Fryer (the prof who published the recent study) had previously been accused of sexual harassment, and played the race card then. When he was suspended over this, Claudine Gay was still dean of Harvard, and as you all know she was fired for plagiarism and “antisemitism” in congress. I would imagine Gay was trying to censor Fryer’s research at the time or something, but I digress. Anyways, this narrative has not statistical information to back it up. Multiple studies have been conducted which found no evidence of racial profiling (such as Freyer’s) and the age-old counter argument of “socioeconomic factors” is debunked by countless studies comparing everything from economic background to education. But they still tout this narrative. But you may notice that most of their evidence for racial profiling comes from personal testimony, part of their “centering black voices” shtick. Well this is not compelling evidence. When you tell black people they are going to be shot/arrested by cops for being black, they start seeing that everywhere. Black people start getting jumpy when a cop pulls them over for speeding (they were speeding btw), they start to feel like cops ONLY ever pick on them and not anyone else, etc. And, of course, they literally never listen to cops when they say “hands up” because they think they will end up dead either way.
A personal example of this was when my roommate last year (pretty rich black dude from Jamaica) was telling me how he had been “racially profiled” by a campus cop. He told me that he and his friend (white) had gone to the university cafeteria and gotten some sort of purple punch that they were serving, and had taken it in a white Styrofoam to-go cup when they left. One of them had accidentally double cupped the drink, so they had purple drinks in white Styrofoam double-cups, which obviously looks like lean. Well obviously the cop stopped them and asked what he had in his cup. Well my old roommate immediately decided he was getting racially profiled. While he didn’t immediately chimp out, he took on this sort of slightly adversarial/apathetic tone to the cop and eventually started saying he was just being racially profiled. His justification for this was that 1. his friend was White, yet the cop chose my roommate to confront, and 2. the university itself provided the drink.
I think this is very telling. First of all, if you are walking in a pair it doesn’t matter who the cop stops or who he is primarily talking to, because both of you will stop and listen. I guarantee you if the White dude had started walking away, the cop would have told him to come back immediately. Second, do you really think the cafeteria staff is going to send the campus police a memo saying “hey we are serving punch that looks like lean today, don’t worry though”? No of course not, that doesn’t make sense. The cop probably had no idea they had purple punch at the cafeteria. And my old roommate even admitted that it did look like lean. This is a campus cop. All he ever does is bust up drug parties at frat houses. He probably busts some frat dude with lean every weekend. Of course he is going to think it’s lean. But yeah can also see why my roommate, who was conditioned to perceive systemic racism, saw this situation like he did. This is exactly how all other black people operate, because it’s how they’re conditioned. And it’s exactly why they all have stories of racial profiling.
I personally know a lot of cops. I’m related to several, I go to church with at least a dozen, I see cops every day as part of my job, and I’ve met plenty of cops when I was working in a local DA’s office. All of them are the same sort of anti-racist NeoCon that we all know. This narrative is just utterly delusional. But it’s intrinsic to their world view, which as we all know is built on a carefully constructed cacophony of lies.
And this is to say nothing of the double faced nature of libfarts. You hear many libfart apologists say that “defund the police” doesn’t actually mean get rid of the police, it just means to reform them. Well I just heard the interviewee on this podcast I’m editing (sorry for being so vague about these people btw, I don’t want to dox myself teehee) say that the defund the police movement DOES actually seek to abolish the police, and that this isn’t a bad thing. He even said that police reform is seen as a more “conservative” effort.
I also want to reiterate how correct I was in that the neo-liberal hordes would turn on their (((masters))) some day. In my Israel and Palestine class, some fruity looking Marxist dude gave a queer little speech the other day about going to vote in the primaries and how, if you were going to vote Democrat, you should not vote Biden and vote third party or just abstain.
This, as you may know, has become a pretty common sentiment among libfarts. Although it has been quite divisive, because it would almost certainly mean 4 more years of Orange Man (bad).
Either way though, I was right (many such cases) and the infighting is only getting worse. Yippee!!!
Some libfarts are going even further and saying that liberalism as a construct, because it was created by people who benefited off of slavery and colonialism, is flawed and that our liberal world is thus flawed as well, we need to “abolish” liberalism. Once again, this was a topic of discussion in this podcast I’m editing. Crazy stuff.
I want to conclude this by saying that there are some pretty useful things that these people produce, at least in the field of Sociology. Sociology itself is actually one of the most keyed subjects, but it is filled to the brim with basketball-American loving commies. I mean think about it, Sociology is LITERALLY the study of the collective unconscious. Like HELLO, based department much???? Stuff like Howard Becker’s Art Worlds also read very similar to those of /ourguys/ who talk about how the world exists to create higher culture.
But most of it is irredeemably ZOGed. Sociology as a concept is keyed, but they way it is practiced today is useless or just in complete bad faith. What few decent works/studies exist are few and far between, and are only becoming more and more rare. In my experience, the greatest utility in engaging with libfart academia is that it makes you better at liblarp.