This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at his Alt-Market.com site.
Editor’s Comment: It is as if society has been perfectly engineered to be divided against itself. There is no doubt that the social justice warriors have lost their marbles, and would criminalize free speech in the name of protecting hurt feelings and politically-correct sacred cows. At the same time, Trump’s controversial presence seems almost tailor made to anger the other side of the aisle and drive Americans caught in the middle into supporting the tyranny of one side or another.
The biggest problem is that this nonsense is sure to escalate until a crowded parade of label-identities clash against each other, and leave the elites who pull the strings forgotten and overlooked – cleared by default from blame as the lower echelons of devolve into civil war and unrest… which will surely be checked by a powerful and growing police state (in the name of keeping the peace). Did anyone remember our rights in all of this? How did America fall so far?
The Social Justice Cult Should Blame Itself For The Rise Of Trump
by Brandon Smith
I have not been writing much concerning the U.S. election this November, and with good reason — elections are always a distraction from tangible solutions. They are an anathema to honest debate; a circus of delusions and prefabricated talking points. They offer the illusion of choice in order to placate the masses. They are a theater of false hopes.
That said, elections do accomplish one thing very well — they are great for mobilizing large numbers of people into opposing camps and pitting them against each other over ideologies and political celebrities. Sometimes, these elections can lead to internal war. This is where we stand in 2016.
In my article Will A Trump Presidency Really Change Anything For The Better, published in March, I outlined why I believed that the election of 2016 would revolve around a Trump vs. Hillary free-for-all. The two sides are perfectly diametrically opposed. At least, as far as public image is concerned, one is the exact antithesis to the other, and I don’t think this is a coincidence.
Over the course of the past century social instability and outright internal conflicts have in most cases been the product of a specific catalyst — namely various flavors of Marxism and communism. That is to say, communists attempt to socially or economically sabotage conservative or free market based systems with civil unrest and political chicanery, and in response, nations are either overrun by color revolution or they swing to the other side of the collectivist spectrum and resort to fascism.
This is often by design. As I have examined in detail in numerous articles in the past, it is the financial elite that tend to play BOTH sides of this modern battle between the communists and the “nationalists,” usually promoting or supporting groups with communist leanings, radicalizing them and exploiting them to drive normally level headed conservatives to respond with anger and totalitarianism to keep them at bay. Of course, these totalitarian regimes also end up under the control of the establishment. It is the best way to hijack and co-opt a conservative population.
Today, we have a similarly pervasive communism in the West funded by the same kinds of elites, only in the form of a more frantic style of cultural Marxism. One need only examine the cash infusions by billionaires like George Soros and his Open Society Institute into Black Lives Matter as well as other “social justice” organizations.
Under the guise of philanthropy, global financiers exploit mindless followers and the entitlement mob like a heavy bludgeon, swinging them wildly at any cultural mainstay that represents the bedrock of the target nation. Apparently, the irony is completely lost on the social justice warriors, who completely ignore the fact that rich white guys are bankrolling their battle against… rich white guys.
It is important to note that while the financial establishment is the very CORE of the problem and the primary instigator and manipulator of the public psyche (they have this down to a science), their success in these endeavors would not be as frequent without so many mindless followers and academic idiots to perpetuate the momentum of chaos. These groups share almost as much blame as the elites in the destruction of civility and prosperity.
In this age of unstable economies and societies, there are many people who are desperate to be told what to do rather than lead themselves. However, none are quite as horrifying as the social justice cultists.
These people are, in my view, nearly the pinnacle of the communist ideal. They are die hard collectivists, and are willing to rationalize almost any action as long as they believe it is being done in the name of the “greater good.” Usually, this greater good is based on entirely arbitrary determinations rather than any inherent moral code, making it vaporous and easily changeable. A “greater good” without principles based in inherent conscience or natural law can be shifted on a whim to suit any evil imaginable.
They believe fervently in the purity of their world view. Most of them are not open to even the slightest question or concern over their ethos. Their blind faith is unshakeable, even in the face of extensive empirical evidence and superior logic. Such people are the ultimate cannon fodder for the elites.
Social justice cultists act on the assumption that history is on their side, and that they will one day be seen as heroes for their deeds.
They not only seek to promote and spread their ideology — this would merely make them a new form of religion. No, they are not just evangelists, they also want their own version of a caliphate; an all dominating cult that crushes any embers of dissent and destroys its philosophical opponents trapped within its ever expanding borders.
A recent and starling example of this mentality can be found in the following video of a BBC show called “The Big Questions.” The subject of the debate — “Does social media reveal men’s hatred for women?” Milo Yiannopoulos faces off with a crowd of mouth breathing true-believers and barely gets a word in edgewise as they do what cultural Marxists do best: use the mob to shout down their opponent and attack the person’s character rather than confront his arguments and evidence:
Though this show is produced out of the U.K. and not the U.S., I am using it to shed light on the inevitable end game of all social justice cultists regardless of where they live — to dominate all discussion and erase conservative thought from society. The attitudes displayed by the feminists and the rather pathetic members of the audience are truly frightening. Not only do they argue that Yiannoupoulos has no right to even be dignified with time to respond, they are at bottom also claiming the right to assert force of law to ban ideas they disagree with and even to imprison the people that argue those ideas.
Instead of simply ignoring or blocking the people who offend them like rational adults, or participating in a free exchange, they want the power of government to silence opposition. If their ideas were truly superior in merit then they would have no need to use force to silence or imprison their opponents. They want to turn the whole of the web, the whole of the WORLD, into a federally enforced “safe space” for their ideology and their ideology alone.
It is this kind of zealotry that leads to outright totalitarianism and collectivism. This is the kind of evil that is done in the name of the so-called “greater good.”
The fact is, their feelings are irrelevant. They do not matter. Most rational people don’t care if SJWs are offended, or afraid or disgusted and indignant. Their problems are not our problems. Our right to free expression and freedom of association is far more important than their personal feelings or misgivings. We do not owe them a safe space. If they want a safe space, then they should hide in their hovels or crawl back to the rancid swamps from whence they slithered.
A backlash is building against the social justice cult that will be unleashed sooner rather than later, and so far it is accelerating at the height of the election frenzy under the banner of Donald Trump.
Social justice warriors seem to find themselves befuddled at the rise of Trump, but as I predicted in March, a Trump vs. Hillary face-off was inevitable.
For conservatives, Hillary is the ultimate representation of political hell spawn. She is a proven elitist puppet, with a criminal record that reads like a transcript from the Nuremberg trials. She is also a part of an ongoing trend of dynasties in U.S. politics. Americans have grown tired of the Bushes and the Clintons. We have grown tired of the endless reign of neo-cons and neo-liberals. We are looking something different, or what we hope is something different. Trump at first glance at least looks like a candidate outside of the establishment norm.
Beyond this increasing aversion to the status quo, though, is the growing American contempt for the social justice cult. This will be a primary driver of the U.S. election.
While many in the cult had thrown their support behind Bernie Sanders for a time, Bernie showed his true colors by bowing down to the Clinton machine. This is typical of socialists, who regularly forgo their proclaimed principles in the name of “unity” and “victory” under a single collectivist umbrella. Many in the social justice crowd have quickly jumped on Hillary’s bandwagon, as her campaign now rides solely on the disposition of her own sexual organs.
That is to say, Clinton is now the new mascot for the SJW crowd, even though many of them don’t really like her.
I’m not so sure the “vote for me because I’m a woman” theme is going to go over quite as effectively as Obama’s “vote for me because I’m black” theme. The Hillary campaign symbol, looking strangely like a warped version of the arrowed symbol for “Male” and Mars, is emblazoned on worshipful feminist posters and cartoons everywhere. A nice touch was the cringe-worthy display of Clinton’s giant head on the DNC mega-screen bashing through photos of past male presidents as if “shattering” the proverbial glass ceiling. Set aside the fact that over half of American voters are women, and that there is no glass ceiling preventing women from being voted into office by other women if being a woman rather than a decent candidate was all that mattered.
The theater of the feminist absurd aside, this election is going to tumble about wildly on all sorts of carnival sideshows.
The so called “controversy” over comments made by Trump against the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in U.S. service in Iraq is just the beginning of the circus. To be fair to Trump, the sheer hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton, a warmonger of the highest degree and a participant by-proxy in the death of the soldier in question, using his parents as fuel for a campaign controversy goes so far into the realm of the disturbing that I might be shocked if I didn’t understand that the whole thing is a mind game. These kinds of distractions are meant to fuel the flames and I predict they will become frequent and overwhelming by November.
To reiterate, it is clear that the Clinton campaign is going the route of pandering to the SJWs. This is the script, and I as I said after the Brexit referendum vote, I believe that the script ends with a Clinton failure and a Trump victory. Pandering to SJWs rarely leads to success. And, a faltering economy blamed on Trump would be far preferable to one blamed on Clinton.
My regular readers know well that I personally do not have much faith in the Trump campaign; I’ve seen too many constitutional inconsistencies and too many meetings with elitist representatives so far to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he turns out to be a true constitutionalist, then I will be pleasantly surprised and happy to admit I was wrong.
That said, I do understand why the public is rallying around Trump. They see him not as a candidate, but as a vehicle to push forward a fight against a social justice juggernaut that has gone unanswered for far too long. They don’t much care about him as a man, which is why the character attacks by the social justice cult and the media have fallen flat again and again. They only care that he might not be the status quo. They are looking for something radical to counter the radicalism of cultural Marxists.
I am not here to argue over which candidate is “better,” or preferable or the “lesser of evils.” None of this matters. I realize that I am not going to convince anyone to vote in anyway different than how they have already decided to vote. In fact, I am certain that most people decided exactly how they were going to vote as soon as the candidates were publicly finalized.
The zealotry will be evident on both sides. Democrats will accuse me of being biased in favor of Trump because I outline in articles the endless parade of horrors surrounding Clinton’s career. Republicans will accuse me of “secretly working for the Democrats” because I refuse to throw full blind faith behind Trump. That’s just how elections work – follow my mascot or you are my enemy.
I really couldn’t care less. I’m on the side of liberty and individualism and I’ll fight on this side alone if I have to.
I will say that I KNOW exactly what will happen under Hillary Clinton – despotism in the name of “equality”, leading to outright civil war. I only SUSPECT according to what I have seen so far that Trump is not a constitutional candidate.
The danger is that in our search for the counterbalance to social justice despotism and Hillary Clinton’s evident communist addictions, we conservatives will fall into the old historical paradigm of fascism in the name of defeating communism, helping the elites instead of dethroning them. The danger is that we get so caught up in trying to destroy the social justice mob that we forget our principles.
If a President Trump shows any indications of being anti-constitution, even in the name of our own “greater good,” conservatives MUST stand by our ideals and stand against him, or we become no better than the SJW psychopaths we seek to stop. No man, no woman, no president is more important than the liberties and heritage of this nation and its citizenry.
As far as social justice activists are concerned, if they really want to change this country for the better, then they should consider dropping out of their little cult and finding something productive to do. Stop spending your parents’ money on garbage gender studies classes. Become scientists and engineers. Become doctors and inventors. Create a better planet through ingenuity rather than manic ideology. Make yourselves useful or something. You’re not only wasting your own time wreaking havoc with your collectivism, you are also wasting our time, because now we have to spend it working to stop you and the elites that fund you.
Become self sufficient instead of begging for handouts or feeding off your family and their savings accounts. Add to the world instead of bleeding it dry. Help people through personal action instead of trying to micro-manage their lives and their speech and their thoughts through force of government.
Otherwise, all you are is more gasoline on a fire that will result in inevitable conflict; a conflict which you will lose. A conflict which may only serve the interests of the very elites which you think you are fighting against. Remember, whatever happens, it was the social justice cult that helped to create the conditions by which such a conflict became unavoidable. Without the cultural Marxists, there would be no rationale for any division. If they would simply leave us all alone to think and say what we feel, to choose our associations without interference or invasive conquest of “spaces” and to live in a functioning society based on merit rather than victimhood and artificial fear, there would be no fertile ground for an election circus of this magnitude.
And finally, if EVERYONE relied less on political celebrities, if everyone stopped waiting for a knight on a white horse, or a feminist icon, or a crusade to fight, or a social justice mob to join and started determining their own futures; if everyone began looking far more carefully at the people behind the curtain, then perhaps we could finally see a change in humanity not seen in thousands of years. Not a collectivist change, but an individualist change, which is the only kind of change everlasting or worth a damn.
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at his Alt-Market.com site. Please visit his site to support his efforts and read more of his in-depth writing.
See featured article here:
Paul Craig Roberts
The letter below came to me from Oxford University where I was a post-graduate.
I do not think it conceivable that the letter was actually written by Oriel College, or any authority at Oxford. This letter was written in exasperation by someone who feels that the civilized world has collapsed around him. This is a letter that the author of the letter wishes had been written.
By presenting the letter, I am not endorsing a make-believe letter or its point of view. My point is different. The world’s most famous university lacks the confidence to defend itself from from unreasonable demands made by students from its former colonies who desire to remove the association of Oriel College with its benefactor, Cecil Rhodes.
Yet, despite insufficient confidence to stand up to foreign students, England has mustered the confidence to align with Washington against the Muslim World and Russia. How do we explain this?
If the British still had enough confidence for an Oxford College to have penned such a letter, the British would not have forsaken their sovereignty and joined the European Union. What saved Cecil Rhodes stature at Oriel College was not Oxford but alumni who said they would cancel bequests of 100 million British pounds if the university succumbed to erasing its history in order to appease foreigners who claim to be offended by it. If they are offended, say the alumni, let them go elsewhere.
The future independence of universities is in doubt, especially those dependent on alumni support. Old grads are turned off by the erasure of what they remember. Recent grads are not experiencing the same success. A university degree no longer brings the same economic success that it did in the 20th century. A financialized and offshored capitalism has heavily redistributed income and wealth to the One Percent. One consequence is that the alumni donor base will shrink.
Moreover, the older generation of graduates, who made their money in the past, is constantly reminded by fund-raising materials that the college or university that they attended has been replaced by something else. What they experienced is gone. Oxford colleges were segregated by gender and attended mainly by British. Today they are gender-integrated and multi-cultural. Judging from photos in fund-raising materials, at Oxford the British appear to be a minority.
Instead of warm and fuzzy feelings, old grads feel dispossessed. The psychological effect on those who experienced a different Oxford environment is similar to returning to the site of your grandparents farm and finding a subdivision, a bedroom community for a once distant city. The creek you explored is now inside a pipe buried under back yards, and the trees you climbed are cut down. You feel a loss. This is what many alumni feel when they experience the transformation of their educational institution. They experience a loss of association, which is not a racist or sexist response.
As survivors of an era in which economic success was more broadly based pass away, colleges and universities will turn increasingly to corporations and the One Percent for funds. These donors will extract a price. Colleges and universities will be suborned, as the media and politicians are today, to serve the powerful interests on which they are dependent.
We might think that this is what the Oxford alumni are doing when they threatened to withhold bequests, but it is not. The alumni are not saying what is to be taught and not taught or how things are to be explained. The alumni are saying that it is impermissible to destroy history by throwing it into Orwell’s memory hole. Oxford alumni have had to accept so much change and now the physical image itself, the historical landmarks, are to be thrown away. The result is that nothing any longer corresponds to their memories. Their association with their college and the university becomes severed.
There is no doubt that the British and US governments have ground under their feet many peoples. But history is history. We have to live with it and try to make the future better. We cannot substitute for history our view of what should have happened.
Here is the letter that indicates more British confidence than actually exists:
This letter is a response from Oxford to Black Students, some of whom are
attending as Rhodes Scholars, who are demanding the removal
of the statue of their and Oxford’s benefactor, Cecil Rhodes.
Subject: OXFORD – THE FIGHT BACK HAS BEGUN
Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The
Chancellor of Oxford University, was on the Today Programme
on BBC Radio 4 yesterday on precisely the same topic. The
Daily Telegraph headline yesterday was “Oxford will not
Patten commented ““Education is not indoctrination. Our
history is not a blank page on which we can write our own
version of what it should have been according to our
contemporary views and prejudice.”
Rhodes Must Fall
“Dear Scrotty Students,
“Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to
the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford
students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better,
brighter and more deserving than you.
“This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything
Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to.
Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres
moeurs. If you don’t understand what this means – and it
would not remotely surprise us if that were the case –
then we really think you should ask yourself the question:
‘Why am I at Oxford?’
“Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest
extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at
least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the
invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century
intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and
beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon,
William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus,
Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Samuel Johnson,
Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde,
Emily Davison, and Cardinal Newman. We’re a big
deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study
here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is
their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect
and revere her accordingly.
“And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in
mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short-lived
Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s
be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu
tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to
“You’ll probably say that’s ‘racist.’ But it’s what
we here at Oxford prefer to call ‘true.’ Perhaps the
rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know
things are different at other universities. We’ve watched
with horror at what has been happening across the pond from
the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and
even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the
‘safe spaces;’ the blacklivesmatter; the creeping
cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness;
what Allan Bloom rightly called ‘the closing of the
American mind.’ At Oxford however, we will always prefer
facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering,
identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease
to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the
world’s greatest university.
“Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander
your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue
political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how
stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes
scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes
scholarships.) We are well used to seeing undergraduates –
or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of
themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy,
let alone genuflect before it. You may be black –
“BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we
are colour blind. We have been educating gifted
undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our
Commonwealth and beyond for many generations. We do not
discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do,
however, discriminate according to intellect.
“That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or post
grads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the
back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re
black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you
are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those
ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s
another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you
see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to
be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise
your idea is worthless.
“This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil
Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s
symbolic of ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white
slavery’ — well even if it is – which we dispute – so
bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they
can’t pass a bronze statue without having their ‘safe
space’ violated really does not deserve to be here. And
besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the
premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we
stop? As one of our alumni, Dan Hannan, has pointed out,
Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful –
Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them
killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built
by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his
wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate
the US Constitution? Winston Churchill had unenlightened
views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to
lead Britain in the war?
“Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must
Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic
and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian R.W. Johnson
that what you are trying to do here is no different from
what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artefacts in
places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history.
“And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University
on how it should order its affairs? Your rhodesmustfall
campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was
initiated by a black activist who said in one of his lecturers
‘whites have to be killed.’ One of you – Sizwe
Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician
and a member of a party whose slogan is ‘Kill the Boer,
Kill the Farmer.’ Another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is
only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has
boasted about the need for ‘socially conscious black
students’ to ‘dominate white universities, and do so
ruthlessly and decisively.’
“Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some
cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning
tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result
of government indifference and ignorance, one of the
world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised
corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a
collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you
think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying
here at Oxford.
“And then please explain what it is that makes your attention
grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford
college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of
probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy
their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt,
ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly
don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping
to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.
“Understand us and understand this clearly: you have
everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from
Oriel College, Oxford
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
See featured article at: