Tuesday, 3 July 2018

The consumption of Jordan Peterson and #MeToo

The moment I saw this article, I knew the #MeToo movement was over. Finished.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the “movement” was useless. It succeeded, but not for the Yay Women. The question is not why it lasted for maybe six months, but rather what purpose it served in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time? Want your answer? Here you go:
Lawyers for the Weinstein Co. announced in court on Friday that they had agreed to cut the sale price from $310 million to $287 million. A bankruptcy judge must still approve the change, which is strongly opposed by the Weinstein Co. creditors.
Yup, that’s right. Harvey Weinstein’s company (remember him?) is being sold at a discount price to an investment firm called Lantern. Score one for feminism, yay women!

Oh wait…
Andy Mitchell, the co-founder of Lantern, engaged in several rounds of talks with Robert Del Genio, the chief restructuring officer for the Weinstein Co. The result of those talks was an agreement to cut the purchase price by $23 million, while Lantern will assume responsibility for the participation payments. The sale is now expected to close by July 14.
Hmm, 'Andy' doesn’t sound like a female name at all. And this page has a lot of XY. In all that yelling and frantic energy – like a car up on the blocks, gunning its engine – no one in the #MeToo movement asked why they were getting so much airtime, why people were “listening and believing.” People don’t like it when I talk about “They” because it’s amorphous and paranoid like there’s some Mr Burns-type puppet string puller at the top of some Illuminati pyramid. There is no single pyramid. There is one pyramid for every industry and social organ, and if you have to ask who’s at the top, it's not you. For a clue to the location of some of them, ask whose money Lantern is managing.

I told you this would happen. We've been trained to look at these things in terms of gender but forget it, the pathology of the generation is narcissism. #MeToo failed not because of powerful men, but becaude of the mindset of the Yay Women: they want the system to want to treat them more fairly, but they didn’t want to have any input into deciding their own status because power requires a fight and fighting is dangerous. Don't yell at me, I know this is true because not only didn’t they stand a chance at moving the capital, they didn’t even know the capital was the target in the first place.

This is the reason feminism has not only regressed but has become damaging for all of humanity. The movement took everybody's narcissism – yes, the men too – and repackaged it as another front in the gender issues debate. Whatever “change” the Yay Women wanted was entirely co-opted by consumerism. You can see it right there in the word Ms Walters uses in her article – "hate."

What made feminism important in the early days was its goal of changing the system to legitimately move to another constitutional structure where not only women but men were empowered to become more than simply tools for the eat/sleep/consume cycle. It latched onto an idea about the importance of differentiating oneself and striving to overcome the pitfall of blaming others for your own lack of responsibility and agency. 100 years later, the only thing feminism wants is power over the system. In other words, nothing will change except the faces. This isn’t a gender war. This is the same-old model of rich Americans moving money of other rich Americans into their own pockets and using the crowd energy of democracy to do so. Why else do you think we still have protests? “Is it freedom of choice?” Here’s a hint: that’s never the answer.

Feminists are oblivious to the forces that give them their space. It does not matter how they see their movement, all that matters is how Lacan’s Big Other sees it. They still think the reason their voices are heard is that they are speaking the truth. Wrongalongadingdong. You were given a megaphone, time to figure out why don't you think?

I guarantee the Washington Post columnist doesn't know why she used the word "hate," but I know why you were allowed to read it. Hate is the same thing as love  it's all just attention. Hating men is fine, but feminists must hate men in media. More specifically, in The Washington Post. Do you see? This dummy thinks publication in a high-profile webzine means her message is getting out. But it isn't. Marshall McLuhan explained this half a century ago: once a "message" is mediated it is no longer real and is captured by a consumerist system that will slap a price tag on the idea and sell it back you as a defence against change. Are you listening to me, or are you thinking of buying another MAGA hat, they're on special!

I know there are feminists who understand that competition is for losers and monopoly is for winners. I know some feminists actually do see how ignoring the system men built and creating their own female-centric (or perpendicular) system would not only offer women avenues they could directly control but would be constructed with the requisite biological/psychological/temperamental unique abilities available to women and – most importantly – not be available to men. I know they're out there.

These women do not appear in The Washington Post, or anywhere else frequented by the eyeballs of the 25-50 demographic. You see, the system feeds on attention. The only way to win is not to play. What scares the system the most is when enough people ignore it. If those Yay Women #MeToo losers knew even a fraction of the rules, they would stand still with folded arms, simply being here, now and watch the wheels stop turning until, POOF, all the barriers disappear. If women really got serious about feminism and made a point of educating and converting women, "the patriarchy" would lose much of its power.

Instead, feminism focuses on demanding that the system change so that women feel empowered. Who cares whether men are dominating the social/political machine. Who cares about what the science says. Take your data and shove it. The system isn't worried about the truth, only about a more effective lie.

Fine, women are herd animals, I get that. But why are they so prone to following the instructions from a faceless consumerist system? Why are they so keen to throw themselves in the grinder of the eat/sleep/consume cycle from They Live? Why doesn't anybody else see this?

And something else has been nagging at me. I'm trying to figure out why Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is getting so much attention and airtime. If I’m going to be consistent, then it might pay to be more sceptical of his popularity. Not because I don’t think his message is maladaptive – I think it resonates precisely due to its truth content. But that’s the thing: the system doesn’t care about truth…

I think he’s getting airtime because he doesn’t threaten the status quo. Let me explain. In all his love for the individual he never talks about men – specifically, white men – becoming friends with each other or developing true bonds and creating groups. He gives the individual preponderance while saying any cohesion as a category is a bad move due to the infection of identity politics.

But you’ll notice that at that same time only white men are considered to be individuals, they are also being encouraged to become more individualistic and “clean their room.” Is it just me or does that sound suspiciously like a prison warden? According to the political structure, all people are allowed to band together in groups and agitate for systemic priority, except white men. Furthermore, heterosexual white and male clubs are consistently broken up or infiltrated by women and minorities to cancel the creation of bonds among those men.

The question is not why these groups being forced to dilute, but who is opening the gates? Just as with The Weinstein Company takeover by Lantern Capital, we find a clue. There are multiple groups of white men in modern American society, some of whom are in power, and most of whom are not in power. The real risk to those white men in power is not the Muslim hordes (or whatever those in US states with >2 right angles call them) or the women or the blacks or the gays. The real threat, according to the white men in power, comes from the grassroots organisation of other white men who believe in a different form of society.

However, it looks like he and others in the “Intellectual Dark Web” might be trying to find a way to organise. In other words, we’re about to see whether the internet truly has changed how power flows in this new world. My advice to them: do not name your group. The moment you name something, the Beast of consumerism will put it on coffee mugs and bumper stickers. It will eat your movement and dump out a digested mass of disposable waste. It will give you the trappings of power as it holds the true change always one step ahead.

No one ever asks the only question that matters: "hang on, why did they let so many of us in?"

No comments: