“Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson”

Great to listen to those two discuss what’s going on in academe, between the sexes, and in society in general. I will return to this post later to highlight key points of their discussion.

“Why Political Correctness Must End | Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux”

Crazy bitches

Oy. Stumbled across some examples of really annoying SJWs (that is, Social Justice Warriors / a.k.a. feminazi-type feminists).

Crazy bitch #1:

Crazy bitch #2:

A gaggle of crazy bitches up in Canada:

Holy geez. There’s no communicating with people like that. It really is Orwellian the direction that whole Leftist (or whatever we’re to call it) movement is taking. Truly is.

“White Men vs. SJWs”

Reply to s2r5d89’s comment on my “Why I’m No Longer a Feminist” video

Since the damned thing won’t post on Youtube and I already typed it up. So, here it is instead:


You assume humans wouldn’t be better off remaining in caves. lol Or in agricultural societies, as more likely would remain the case. I’m not necessarily sold on the idea that our modern world is the best that’s ever to come. Sometimes it appears that human ambitions have wound us up closer to our species’ eventual demise. But I’m considered a Luddite of sorts and have my own biases there, unrelated to this topic.

Women are not totally incapable and plenty did work long hours in factory jobs that contributed to the rise of our industrialized state. And plenty still do abroad, providing us Americans and other Westerners with so many cheap goods. The view that women are largely useless is absurd. There are useless men and women, yes, just as there are useful ones of both sexes. But economic productivity is not the only basis for measuring one’s worth.

Your men’s movements still further are driving people apart, continuing the project began by most-modern feminists. Neither camps will see their hands are clean when the dust settles. Humans are experiencing problems currently on a lot of levels, sex/gender relations being but one, albeit an important one since it divides and segregates us all in a major way, destroying the communities our species has never been without. And it will take humans, both men and women, to figure out ways to reverse this trend. The answer probably points toward enhancing love in one’s heart since all the reasoning in the world can’t dig us out of this hole and there is a very strong need for connection among those who are capable right about now. Hence why people are running toward political and religious parties and ideologies — they are seeking a sense of belonging somewhere to escape this increasing sense of alienation. It will get harder with time, I don’t doubt it.

And here’s his original comment, for context’s sake:

s2r5d89 6 hours ago (edited)

Let’s face the facts, without men this world will look like it did back in the cave man days. Women are not working in the many jobs that keep our society moving, construction, sewage, HVAC ,etc. etc. These jobs are dirty. cold, dangerous and so on. I have single women living in my street and I see them struggle just to shovel their driveways, life is not rosy without the extra pair of stronger arms. Feminism is about selective equality and I believe it’s mainly by people who are looking for attention.

Feminist are driving females and males apart, you see that with the growth of the mgtow and other mens movements in response to the demoralization that men have been subjected to by feminist and others who jump on their ’cause’ bandwagon . If we want to live in a world where men and women hate, disrespect and distrust each other then keep on trekking in the feminist world. I dont mean the video creator but feminist in general.

“Cultural Marxism” (videos by Anekantavad)

“Cultural Marxism”:

“Cultural Marxism II”:

“Cultural Marxism III”:

Skipping part 4 in the series and heading on to “Cultural Marxism V” (including actual quotes from Karl Marx):

“Cultural Marxism VI”:

“Re: A Brief History of Feminism (Cultural Marxism VII?)”:

“Cultural Marxism VIII”:

Those were the best videos, IMO, out of a series created by Andy back in 2011.

I present these videos here simply as another perspective on the matter, considering how frequently I hear and read the term “cultural marxism” lobbed around these days online. Andy’s views don’t necessarily encapsulate my own views on this topic entirely, though I do share his recognition that this term is used so broadly and vaguely (plus has very little to do with Karl Marx’s actual expressed views) to where it’s rendered nearly nonsensical and is incapable of being accurately descriptive. It’s become a popular buzzword (at least in certain circles) lacking in clear content, which of course leads to the term obscuring more than it illuminates.

“Everything’s Awesome and Camille Paglia is Unhappy!” (plus my own thoughts)

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie conducted an interview with Camille Paglia:

Honestly, I don’t entirely know what to think of Camille Paglia. My online buddy Wyrd Smythe mentioned her a few years ago, suggesting that I seemed to share some ideas in common with her and should check into her if I wasn’t already familiar. Well, since then I have, and while I can see where our ideas overlap in some areas, it’s also plainly evident how different we are, particularly when it comes to our political stances (she being a Democrat, whereas I lean libertarian). Setting that aside, perhaps it’s partly a generational gap where I struggle to relate with her expressed view of the 1960s-1980s and the pop culture icons she esteemed. And also her conversational style strikes me as a bit overwhelming and tricky to follow, though admittedly I too can get fired up and hyper-talkative at times.

Her emphasis on all that is political kinda turns me off as well, as one out here belonging to the tail-end of Generation X who’s come to see the U.S. political game (particularly the major two parties dominating the scene) as a farce and a display of puppetry where members of the public are relentlessly encouraged to keep our eyes on various balls that, more often that not, just wind up proving to be relatively trivial distractions from focusing on the bigger picture. Dedicatedly keeping up with the tits and tats of it all gets to feeling like another form of inanity after a few years — like, what good does it really do to continuously keep up on these chess moves when it appears there isn’t much that can be done by individuals (particularly we outside of the duopoly political camps) to alter the game?

While I do agree that a lot of academics don’t seem to have much direct experience with the working-class life, I’m not entirely convinced that the “Leftists of the ’60s” in fact did. If she’s terribly concerned about the working class, I wonder why she then remains so opposed to many who happen to vote Republican, seeing as how there’s a huge voter base at the bottom there who remain working/service class. I’ll assume the reason for this is she detests their “traditional” attitudes and beliefs (though she also expresses disdain for what’s become of secularism), based on what I’ve listened to from her in various interviews thus far, but she has to realize that many who become cosmopolitan and leave small-town America have a tendency to become more liberal-minded and therefore become much more likely to leave behind the gender norms and religious attitudes that have historically aided working-class and agrarian people and the communities they belong(ed) to.

Kind of like me. I can speak from the blue-collar working-class perspective only so far, because I moved on and relocated to the North to large cities where I’ve encountered a sea of strangers along with much greater diversity, all of which has expanded my way of viewing life and people and the choices available to us. And I, just like her, do not work in a factory and never have, even though my Grandma did. But unlike Camille Paglia, I did not rise further than completing a Bachelor’s degree in college and returned to service work that is not terribly unlike what my Grandma and aunt and mother all continue to work at. The blending of the service economy with working-class professions has created a bunch of blurred lines that complicate what’s under discussion here. And while some may consider working as a professor in academe to be a type of service job, I’d argue that’s why these matters can’t help but be so hazy to try to make sense out of. Where’s the cut off between the working class and the middle class? Where are the distinctions drawn anymore? And how much does this even matter now as we embark on the 21st century? Relics of history, in a real sense. Plenty of us were indeed impacted by these shifts from the old ways of working and living, if only through observing those most impacted, but do most of us not live entirely different lifestyles now, by comparison? So what are we trying to stand up for here? People not born with trust funds and silver spoons in their mouths? If that’s the case, then yeah, she and I are coming from a similar place in that regard.

Does a president (or that office, particularly) automatically deserve our respect? Hmmm…  I can’t say “yes” there. But are people behaving like snarky brats demeaning that position rather than attacking the real issues at hand? Sure, I’d agree with that much. Goes back to people giving up on politics and seeing it as little more than a tit-for-tat game to applaud or hiss at from the sidelines. The attitudes have shifted among the younger crowds, and it looks to me like Camille Paglia is having trouble accepting and coming to terms with that. She seems to want us to react like people of the ’60s did, but it won’t happen. Too many people have burnt out on this shit. Getting much of anything of real and lasting value done through the legal channels looks more and more like a huge (and expensive) waste of time. So different strategies are being employed now, including some choosing to simply tune out. Which really probably isn’t all that different from what the drug users of the ’60s effectively did as well. The main difference being that we today probably don’t pay as much lip service to utopian ideals while doing so.

That probably sounded more jaded than need be. I’m just trying to say that people of the ’60s didn’t manage to regain hold of the reins of this country either, regardless of how much they claimed to care or how many protests they attended. That strategy failed. How much has it really changed anything for the better?

Good to hear that she doesn’t demonize the Tea Party though. I don’t either, aside from the Koch brothers eventually co-opting it to suit their own purposes.

I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton either, for a variety of reasons. But I don’t see why it’s such a pressing matter that we have a female elected into that office soon. I’d be cool with anyone, regardless of gender/sex or race or religious background, who has real integrity and stands outside of and opposed to the two-party setup in the country. But that’s admittedly a pipe dream at this point.

This quote lifted from the interview I can get fully behind:

“I do not feel that gender is sufficient to explain all of human life.” … “This gender myopia, this gender monomania, has become a disease. It’s become a substitute for religion. It is impossible that the feminist agenda can ever be the total explanation of human life.”


And while I’ve never traveled outside of the U.S. (aside from that one afternoon in Tijuana, Mexico), I concur with her that this isn’t a bad place to live.

Discussion between a college-age feminist, an MRA, and a couple atheists (plus my thoughts)

Feminist (AwesomeRants) vs. MRA (Janet Bloomfield) (DP)”:

Haven’t watched but maybe a couple of Drunken Peasants videos so far, though I am a fan of T.J.’s Amazing Atheist YT channel.

I really liked this discussion, though I’d like to see more including Tori of the AwesomeRants channel fleshing out her ideas in greater detail (maybe having her on as a guest by herself). Because feminism is still rather new to her, so she’s totally learning and taking in this stuff and forming opinions as she goes, just as any of us were back in college. Opinions will necessarily shift and change over time. That’s life. And she’s a particularly smart and thoughtful young woman, having watched several of her videos in the past. I don’t always agree with her, but I respect that she’s actively seeking to learn and possesses a critical mind that appears willing to challenge even her own biases. She’s good people, so far as I can tell.

And so is T.J.

Know less about Scotty and JudgyBitch/Janet Bloomfield. But overall, I gotta say that I agreed in places with everybody in this video, now paused at the 46:26 mark. Many thoughts sprang to mind while watching this…

Ya know, I agree with T.J that there are philosophical differences among people that can be so great that perhaps we’re better off going our separate ways, at least in that respect (in this case, in terms of romantic relationships). Some people desire very intuitive, intimate partnerships where their partner is capable of reading their body language and is sensitive to moods and whatever else. While to an extent I grasp all of that, I’m personally more in line with Janet’s thinking in that I have no issue with asserting myself when something troubles me, at least not anymore. Those who are less direct and expect their partner to take cues can be really confusing to the uninitiated. And I’m here to say that those types aren’t always female despite the feminine association with what might be minimally considered coyness or playing hard to get (some are also the types who need the stars aligned and the wind blowing in just the right sort of way . . . yep, grown men can be that way too, even heterosexuals, truth be told). Plenty of people out here even like it like that on the whole, whichever way they may individually lean.

Me personally, I’m a pursuer who also enjoys being pursued by those I’m attracted to. If I’m not interested, as an adult, I can and will state it. If I’m in a committed relationship with someone I’ve chosen to engage with him because we share certain values in common and aim to respect one another’s boundaries. So yeah, in that sort of setup consent is established, unless it involves some freaky shit that we have the sense to realize ought to be discussed with our partner(s) in advance. But that’s talking about an established relationship. What about in cases where relative strangers are involved? And that’s where I come down more solidly for the need to be assertive and to work hard at avoiding putting yourself in potentially compromising situations where you might be overwhelmed and/or taken advantage of. Goes back to that notion of knowing thyself … but it’s a learning process. And it’s young people primarily the ones wrestling with these sexual questions and problems.

We live in a culture that glamorizes and pedestalizes youth and beauty probably more than ever before, setting young people up to be targeted by adults all the more so. And that’s where these sort of conversations veer off for me, because youths are naive and do struggle to know how to react and can be overwhelmed to where they’re paralyzed with fear and uncertainty. Or they (how often seemingly?) enthusiastically consent to things that aren’t actually good for them, because they can’t see far enough into the future and are too inexperienced to predict the consequences. Living and learning…  Do we as older (ha!) people not bear a greater responsibility to be mindful of not leading young, naive people intro troubled waters? I guess I’m asking if we shouldn’t position ourselves in their lives as friends rather than as predatory foes and/or intellectual combatants. Yet a substantial portion of the population were corrupted by adults in their youth, so this is happening and it’s an inquiry seriously needing to be addressed, and not just by gender ideologues.

People possess a tendency to manipulate and use those whom they’re able to, which is to say humans tend to be opportunistic, and that can and does shake out in myriad ways across the spectrum, ranging from sexual abuse to physical domination to intellectual and emotional trickery to applying strong social pressure. Women are not immune to behaving in these ways, which I’d guess is common sense. But there are gendered differences when it comes to the ways it tends to play out.

Clear and obvious example: When was the last time you heard of a female prowling a neighborhood, sneaking into a random house and accosting a stranger sleeping at knife- or gun-point, demanding sex? When we do hear of these select cases, males overwhelmingly are the perpetrators. Most of us chock that up to common sense. Deceptively manipulating someone into marrying you so you can get your hands on their money? More commonly associated with female behavior. Different ways that abuses of power can and typically do shake out between the sexes, quite obviously.

Part of the issue is this expanded definition of what legally constitutes rape. That’s a problem since all offenses, from extreme violation and mistreatment on over to miscommunications between mutually drunken idiots, wind up falling under the same banner, undifferentiated. IMO, this is the major question confronting us as a society in this respect: determining what’s worthy of legal prosecution and what’s best handled interpersonally and socially. Not all offenses are created equal, as we know. Someone breaking into my car when I’m not around and stealing my stereo isn’t perceived by me to be as great of a violation as experiencing a home invasion where I am present, tied up, and tortured. Different degrees of trauma will arise there. Crude as these comparisons are, the same holds true for sexual violations. [Nothing I say is intended to be taken strictly literally unless I expressly state that to be my intention. Understand here that I am NOT implying that raping a person who’s passed out cold is in any way comparable to jacking my car when I’m not in it. No. That does not qualify as a lesser form of “date rape,” which I’d define as involving mostly coercion and manipulation rather than physical force and/or the lack or absence of the ability to affirmatively consent, which admittedly in some cases gets pretty hazy as well. Big reason why we have to be cognizant of the situations we’re putting ourselves and others in when we’re out drinking or doing whatever and playing in the hook-up culture. I could say a lot more on this and related subjects, but it can wait for a future blog post.]

What makes it so terribly complicated here are the untold number of nuances involved in our sexual and social interactions. This is no cut-and-dried matter that can be effectively reduced down to positive affirmations granted each and every step along the way, not if we’re to actually enjoy spontaneity with our sexual partners. That’s not what most of us want either, whether male or female. What we do want is to be shown more respect, and that’s a two-way street. Obviously though, some people override concern for others in pursuit of their own jollies. Not uncommon, especially among the horniest demographic.

But here’s the thing: in my quite adequate number of sexual partners and experiences, I’d say that the vast majority of men aren’t interested in raping someone. If you state it plain and let them understand what they’re doing is pushing in that direction, they’ll back off. Don’t even have to go that far even with most men — an emphatic “NO! I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU!” backed up by unyielding body language turns them completely off. And I didn’t even have to go that far much of the time.

I can understand how we might at times send mixed signals to males, so it does help to state our intentions upfront and either stick with them and act accordingly, or abandon them and decide what risks we are willing to take. But admittedly, part of the problem with the hook-up scene is that you’re often dealing with strangers, people you really can’t say with certainty are going to treat you with respect behind closed doors. It’s a risk, and it’s one I think more young people would be better off trying to avoid, from the sounds of it. But then they’re being bombarded with so much sexuality in our popular media and mixed messages encouraging them to behave in these ways.

(If I were a parent, I’d follow my stepdad’s lead and not subscribe to cable television. Even without kids I haven’t subscribed to cable this time around since at least 2008. But now most households have the internet, so who knows how to protect young people from being swayed by so much poor advice and sexual over-stimulation? Not to mention their exposure through their peers at school. Crazy times…)

More than feeling on a side in these gender-bent debates, I just mostly feel sorry for young people having to learn so much the hard way. It can be really rough out there. Sometimes you think you have the situation under control, but then later learn otherwise. Alcohol consumption certainly complicates matters there. And, like I said before, there’s no shortage of older people willing to take advantage of youthful naivety wherever they find it. Sad, but true. Apparently a fact of life.

I don’t know what to tell young people today. Part of me wants to say don’t follow in my footsteps since it contains some hard lessons that could really mess up the tender-hearted. But then again, how else does one learn but through trial and error? Some potentially expensive consequences up in there though, like becoming pregnant or contracting an STD or getting seriously traumatized by a scary individual. These are the risks we take with sex, especially with relative strangers. Leads me back to what Tori was saying about being sensitive to our partner’s needs and wants — yes, that’s a fabulous idea, and it’s best carried out by waiting to get to know people for a while before engaging in sexual activity, that way you can better gauge how they are and what their intentions may be. It’s this promiscuous, drunken hook-up culture where strangers come together that’s causing a lot of confusion and problems.

While I understand many of us don’t desire a return to past gender roles or social pressure for us to be monogamous to one partner throughout all our life, that doesn’t mean there’s greater value in swaying to the opposite extreme of rampant reckless sex among strangers and seeing people as nothing but instruments to be used to satisfy our own selfish sexual pleasures. It’s that mentality, in a nutshell, that appears to be fucking us up. Nothing necessarily wrong with hooking up for sex, but it’s risky behavior and the odds are, I’d say, that 1-5 out of 100 (if you play your cards right) will be so selfish that they disregard your boundaries and perhaps even safety in striving to gratify themselves. And then there’s always that stray “free radical” to worry about who may seriously prove sadistic and dangerous (think: Looking For Mr. Goodbar). While it’s true that a person can be sexually accosted while minding our own business, the risks dramatically go up when we retreat into private spaces with people we don’t know well under the implicit assumption that sex very well may occur. Especially when boozed up. That’s not meant judgmentally, just pointing to the potential hazards here.

These are hard truths for young people to come up against, yes. Add it to the mountain of other things we grew up lied to or in the dark about. The truth is that the hook-up culture is potentially dangerous, and you have to go into it with your eyes open rather than being too trusting of strangers. Naivety extracts a cost eventually. We like to imagine some perfect world where this no longer occurs, but how could that ever be when humans are so complex and varied? Threats will always exist, and no amount of education can fully eliminate them. Because some people don’t care that they’re breaking the law or seriously upsetting or harming someone else. Some people can be very cruel and unconcerned. Or just selfish and willfully oblivious. I don’t know how we protect younger people from reckoning with this fact of life, aside from aiming to not contribute to it and sharing our own stories in case they’re open to learning lessons vicariously through others. Some lessons one indeed would be better off not having to learn in the harshest fashion, and I’m glad I gleaned as much as I did from others I was fortunate enough to read or hear directly from back in the day.

As is commonly said, why reinvent the wheel?

Anyway, moving along in their talk above about the rights women possess in the West compared to men… The genital mutilation argument continues to garner my sympathy and support (as does selective service requirements). As for choice when it comes to creating and supporting a child, with the technologies available to us today, I can understand there needing to be some sort of way for both males and females to sign on to the pregnancy being taken to full-term and both agreeing to share in providing financial/household, emotional, psychological and otherwise nurturing support toward any offspring we’re bringing into existence. I agree with this for enhancing equality between the sexes, but also because I think this would help create checks and balances both legally and socially that are sorely needed. Using kids to take advantage of each other through the courts is a messed-up way to behave. Shouldn’t be a parent if you’re going to act like that. It’s not fair. Kids don’t deserve to be used as pawns between adults. So my concern is with the upbringing of future generations being brought into this mess more so than between the sexes battling it out today, seeing as how I don’t and won’t have kids of my own (thanks to technologies).

I love my right to choose, so I want to see others enjoy it as well. No reason to be exclusive — we can work it out somehow. Can’t we? If I become pregnant and the man expressly states he doesn’t want to share in parenting, am I not agreeing to single motherhood? Of course I am. But I may require of him to help finance it and partake in at least some aspects of parenting regardless of his will. That’s not a fair arrangement. Gonna have to upgrade that. So many children being born to disinterested, unhappy parents has been a problem for a long time — why continue it if we don’t have to anymore?

Social checks and balances to discourage certain behaviors have always existed among social beings, playing out in varied ways across cultures—and while acknowledging abuses of unfortunate circumstances did occur and could be unduly harsh (here thinking about the treatment of single/widowed mothers in past times, as well as those with legitimate brain abnormalities who wound up vilified, though, interestingly enough, shamans of old are often compared with those labeled as schizophrenics today and are claimed to belong to the same lineage — goes to further demonstrate the power of perception at any given point in history)—but we now live in the time of plenty in great grids where agricultural innovations make it possible to support massive populations, many of whom if thrown back on our own (primitive) devices at this point could not survive; this continues because our government stepped in and plays the role of Big Poppa. And this all costs tax-paying citizens a fortune (though not as much as corporate welfare, it deserves to be declared, to put it in sharper perspective). We’re getting hosed by our governments and would benefit from nearly anything that extracts its involvement from our lives and personal business. We can and likely should figure this shit out among ourselves and figure out ways to get the Government to back the fuck off and let us do so. But that requires cooperation, coming on the heels of decades where competition became all the rage. The cooperative spirit has been effectively undermined, and these are some of the consequences. Better ways are called for.

Interesting talk. Glad to see it didn’t devolve into some shaming match.

The night’s gotten away from me.

“How America Became a Nation of Victims: Culture of Victimization & Personal Responsibility (1992)”

Currently watching this 1992 footage from CSPAN2’s BookTV:

“The rise of the therapeutic state”…yes, that’s what we’ve got. I’ll go a step further and say we’re witnessing the rise of the Administered Society to boot. “…use litigation as the tool of choice in order to advance causes.” Very strange to observe, that’s for sure.

I’ve heard about that Bradshaw guy and his infantilism “therapy” they’re speaking of around the 23-minute mark. Weird shit that began with the Baby Boomer generation since they were the first to take flight from reality en masse (at least in the 20th century). People like to claim that television plays no major role in shaping people’s imaginations and that most are able to keep reality and fiction separate, but take note of all the evidence defying that. Boomers were raised up on televised fantasies that colored their worldviews and gave rise to the notion that they deserved to have their wishes brought into fruition, even if through political means. To simply dream something could be possible became commonly accepted as proof enough that it can and should be brought about — nevermind any potential negative consequences; leave those to be ironed out by future generations.  disapprove

What we’ve discovered in the decades since is that those fantasies very often aren’t realistic, not in full, not how commonly expected, from the dreams of ever-higher standards of living to 100% equality across the board to eliminating all sex- and/or race-related prejudices through legal and organizational means. Because human life is far more complex than that and legal measures aren’t adequate to overhaul hearts and minds. Arguably, using coercive legal and organizational strategies and encouraging an atmosphere of censorship has led to more social divisions and bred greater resentment. Ambitions of attaining and maintaining la-la-land standards of living has driven deeper wedges between socioeconomic classes that, on the one hand, produced many spoiled, historically-ignorant, idealistic youths geared toward suburbanite fantasies, and, on the other, has helped to exacerbate the erosion of already-impoverished communities. The aim to bring about some sort of utopian society has backfired and instead has ushered in a web of contradictions and exploitative wishful thinking, without end in sight.

When asked who is responsible, the typical answer is to point to the other guy, those people over there, those institutions, those politicians, that race or class of people. Always somebody else. But we were all born into this and make of it what we are able. Helps to strip it down to the fundamentals. If influential parties and groups aim to undermine others through legal manipulation, we have the choice to respond in various ways, not merely to wage war on the political battleground or to give in to being miserable and powerless. The way shit’s been framed has gotten into our heads and is limiting our imaginations and therefore our possible responses. It’s a mental matrix determined by what have become cultural, political, and economic and social norms — but those are still only human constructs, not immovable obstacles or unchangeable facts of life. Not when it’s contradicting so much else that too appear to be facts of life.

Kind of like when people say the only things certain in this life are death and taxes (which I actually heard repeated, yet again, earlier today). I’m quick to correct people who say that and to explain that no, taxes are not an unavoidable, ever-present fact of life. They are not. Taxation is a human construct that we abide by, for better or worse, but most certainly isn’t on the same playing field as death. Financial taxation is not a guaranteed condition of living. To equate these two is to grant taxation a higher status than it’s due, and I don’t think that’s come about by accident or oversight. No, the two are equated intentionally so that citizens accept taxation as just as inescapable as death and impresses on us that we should then give in to it, even when too much is taken from us and is used to fund programs and whatever else that further violate us and others against many of our true wills. That’s stupid to accept as a fact of life, and it’s stupid to behave as if we’re powerless in the face of it and that all we’re capable of doing is sitting here and pointing out others to blame for it. Yet that’s become the American public’s modus operandi. Rather than alter or go up against what we’re able, it’s easier to cast blame and expect somebody else to do something about whatever’s going on. And I’m not claiming to be a saint here myself.

“…bogus victims drive out real victims. And if everybody’s a victim, nobody’s a victim.” So true.

Anyway, gonna finish listening to this man before heading back out for my last appointment for the evening.


[Updated Aug. 22nd, 2014: Edited for typos and greater clarity.]

David Rothkopf on “The Superclass”

Came back across a video I first watched back in 2008 and am re-watching this evening: