Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Government organization that routinely sends people to kill and die doesn't primarily value human life. Shocker.

The saddest part of the article:

“They may have taken my health, but they can’t take what I stand for,” Le Roy says. “I will be a patriot until the day that I die. Until they hang that flag on my coffin, I will continue to honor this country.”

Reminds me of the end of Animal Farm.

 

[Dak]

Yeah it is really sad. No matter what is done to them, the brainwashing since birth holds strong.

I don't really get Animal Farm here, although I think about it quite often reading the news.

 

[Matt]

10 acres? Holy fuckballs

 

[Dak]

@Einherjer from the Book thread:

This comment (from someone else) on one of the pages explains most closely my understanding of neoreaction:

Grotto Says:
The neoreactionary cosmology goes something like this:

1. The natural world (“reality&#8221, is best harnessed for human prosperity by conservative principles which understand the limitations and peculiarities of human nature.

2. The Cathedral is a willful, deliberate rebellion from the natural order, and can only be maintained at increasing cost, as the percentage of the society that remains productively grounded in reality continues to shrink.

3. The Cathedral will collapse due to its unsustainability, leading to a chaotic, anarchist mess. During this time, competing systems of sovereignty and power will arise, and those most aligned with the natural order, namely, those that are the most authentically conservative, are likely to achieve dominance.

4. As they achieve dominance and prosperity, they must remain vigilant against the leftward-ratchet. Numerous schemes have been proposed to combat this, and some have hypothesized that it is systemic and unavoidable. If the former is successful, we have reached the end of history as a reactionary stasis. If the latter is true, the cycle begins again.

This aligns very well with the horrorist approach, which could also be considered Taoist. We consider ourselves essentially in harmony with the natural order, and consider the Cathedral as a monstrous rebellion against this order, which must inevitably fail. The primary difference is that while Taoism is essentially practical, intuitionist, situational, neoreaction, born of the Western tradition, believes in an objective natural order whose principles are universal and immutable.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjer from the Book thread:

This comment (from someone else) on one of the pages explains most closely my understanding of neoreaction:

So, purely going from this, I immediately gravitate toward my "critical" biases (which, coincidentally, I take to be relevant in this case):

The neoreactionary cosmology goes something like this:

1. The natural world (“reality&#8221, is best harnessed for human prosperity by conservative principles which understand the limitations and peculiarities of human nature.

2. The Cathedral is a willful, deliberate rebellion from the natural order, and can only be maintained at increasing cost, as the percentage of the society that remains productively grounded in reality continues to shrink.

3. The Cathedral will collapse due to its unsustainability, leading to a chaotic, anarchist mess. During this time, competing systems of sovereignty and power will arise, and those most aligned with the natural order, namely, those that are the most authentically conservative, are likely to achieve dominance.

4. As they achieve dominance and prosperity, they must remain vigilant against the leftward-ratchet. Numerous schemes have been proposed to combat this, and some have hypothesized that it is systemic and unavoidable. If the former is successful, we have reached the end of history as a reactionary stasis. If the latter is true, the cycle begins again.

This aligns very well with the horrorist approach, which could also be considered Taoist. We consider ourselves essentially in harmony with the natural order, and consider the Cathedral as a monstrous rebellion against this order, which must inevitably fail. The primary difference is that while Taoism is essentially practical, intuitionist, situational, neoreaction, born of the Western tradition, believes in an objective natural order whose principles are universal and immutable.

1. I'm unsure what the natural world ("reality"), conservative principles, or human nature are. I'm not going to riff about the inseparability of the human and the natural, since I'm sure it would lead nowhere and probably has already been anticipated by Land et al, as well as you Dak (you've convincingly demonstrated as much elsewhere). I'm curious about conservative principles, however; why this choice of words? What are "conservative principles"? I highly doubt the neoreactionaries would align themselves with traditional conservatism. Is this a redefinition of conservatism? A correction? What I most immediately want to jump to is Freud's notion of the death drive:

According to Freud, all organisms want to die in their own way, which is achieved by following the most economic path (Freud's own language). In this sense, Freud conceives of living organisms as all pursuing what he calls a conservative trajectory (something along these lines). Being familiar with Land's knowledge of Freud, as well as Deleuze and Guattari (who adopted the death drive as one of the concepts that Freud got right), I'm inclined to see "conservative" in this light.

2. This fundamental divide between natural and unnatural really disturbs me. As soon as someone starts appealing to the natural qualities of something, I start backing away and putting my hands up in defense. The Cathedral is no less natural than human economic behavior. Disastrous and cataclysmic conclusions do not mean that something is thereby unnatural. The line between natural and unnatural is itself an unnatural construct, an idealization conceived of by the conscious mind. There's no natural order to which humans are supposed to conform.

3. Maybe, maybe not; when worlds rebuild, anything goes.

4. At this point, calling collectivist motions "leftward-ratchet" merely perpetuates the institution that neoreactionism wants to abandon. This social organization seems to collapse time and time again into archaic categorical maneuvers ("left," "right," "natural," "unnatural," "conservative," "liberal," etc.) that expose an underlying naïveté: the belief in an unchanging and definitive terrestrial order.

If I'm being completely honest, neoreactionism looks like it simply wants to set up its own Cathedral, with its own Holy Trinity of "Trichotomocracy."

 

[Dak]

1. I'm unsure what the natural world ("reality"), conservative principles, or human nature are. I'm not going to riff about the inseparability of the human and the natural, since I'm sure it would lead nowhere and probably has already been anticipated by Land et al, as well as you Dak (you've convincingly demonstrated as much elsewhere). I'm curious about conservative principles, however; why this choice of words? What are "conservative principles"? I highly doubt the neoreactionaries would align themselves with traditional conservatism. Is this a redefinition of conservatism? A correction? What I most immediately want to jump to is Freud's notion of the death drive:

According to Freud, all organisms want to die in their own way, which is achieved by following the most economic path (Freud's own language). In this sense, Freud conceives of living organisms as all pursuing what he calls a conservative trajectory (something along these lines). Being familiar with Land's knowledge of Freud, as well as Deleuze and Guattari (who adopted the death drive as one of the concepts that Freud got right), I'm inclined to see "conservative" in this light.

I wouldn't see conservative in that light when it's within a neoreactionary conversation, as Land himself consistently refers to the "Moldbuggian" view of X (as it relates to neoreaction), rather than a Freudian view or some other view of X, and Moldbug does not appear to make use of any sort of Continental-ish connotations.

Reframing the "Death drive" as wanting to "die in their own way" is problematic. While I would say a desire for liberty/autonomy/etc does include the choice of the circumstantial totality of one's death (time, place, manner, surroundings, etc), I wouldn't call that the "End of ends", or the ultimate telos of all actions. (Unless we say merely that by not wanting to die at any given point other than the point of actual death, we in fact "choose to die in our own way". While technically arguable it is autistic).

Conservative takes on both economic and traditional connotations: Family, saving, inclusively exclusive institutions/community in general, etc.

The inherently exclusory nature of neoreactionastic conservative cultural prescription is offset by the emphasis on the availability of Exit.

I'll reach for Stephenson again and suggest that Neoreaction posits a sort of phylistic world with an explosion of geographical boundaries, and that Neoreactors themselves will organize parallel to the Victorian phyle in style and substance - concerned with authenticity, order, and generally being "above" those hooked to the matter tubes.

2. This fundamental divide between natural and unnatural really disturbs me. As soon as someone starts appealing to the natural qualities of something, I start backing away and putting my hands up in defense. The Cathedral is no less natural than human economic behavior. Disastrous and cataclysmic conclusions do not mean that something is thereby unnatural. The line between natural and unnatural is itself an unnatural construct, an idealization conceived of by the conscious mind. There's no natural order to which humans are supposed to conform.

If anything that arises is automatically natural, so is the the line between natural and unnatural. I'm sure there is need here for some other terminology than "natural" vs "unnatural" to be completely rigorous, but stating that there is no "natural" order to which humans are supposed to conform is not to say there isn't a sort of ("universally ordained"?) order to which humans are supposed to conform. Of course Progressivism/the Cathedral suggests there is a sort of order to which humans are supposed to conform. The neoreactionary claim is the Cathedral's order is ultimately destructive in every sense of the word (to include self destructive, as a parasite dies with the host).

4. At this point, calling collectivist motions "leftward-ratchet" merely perpetuates the institution that neoreactionism wants to abandon. This social organization seems to collapse time and time again into archaic categorical maneuvers ("left," "right," "natural," "unnatural," "conservative," "liberal," etc.) that expose an underlying naïveté: the belief in an unchanging and definitive terrestrial order.

If I'm being completely honest, neoreactionism looks like it simply wants to set up its own Cathedral, with its own Holy Trinity of "Trichotomocracy."

Well Neoreaction certainly isn't anarchism, so that it wants it's own form of coercive government is a given. It would need more analysis before referring to it as "merely another Cathedral". I don't think it is, any more so than any other non-Progressive (particularly summed up as "non-Democratic") governments aren't necessarily "Cathedralistic". Democracy is essentially inseperable from the Cathedral. When the Cathedral appears to be damaged by democratic outcomes, those outcomes cannot (by definition) be Democracy. See Egypt for the most glaring and recent foreign example.

 

[rms]

Government organization that routinely sends people to kill and die doesn't primarily value human life. Shocker.

lol, maybe the military should start flying portable toilets and septum tank draining people around afghanistan.

 

[Einherjar86]

Reframing the "Death drive" as wanting to "die in their own way" is problematic. While I would say a desire for liberty/autonomy/etc does include the choice of the circumstantial totality of one's death (time, place, manner, surroundings, etc), I wouldn't call that the "End of ends", or the ultimate telos of all actions. (Unless we say merely that by not wanting to die at any given point other than the point of actual death, we in fact "choose to die in our own way". While technically arguable it is autistic).

It isn't reframing; that's how the death drive is understood. It's only been framed in one way.

Also, it isn't a conscious decision on the part of the organism, as even non-conscious organisms are beholden to this drive. Freud hypothesizes it as a condition of life itself. If Land wants to theorize the purportedly natural behavior of human beings, that's it.

Conservative takes on both economic and traditional connotations: Family, saving, inclusively exclusive institutions/community in general, etc.

The inherently exclusory nature of neoreactionastic conservative cultural prescription is offset by the emphasis on the availability of Exit.

There's nothing natural or constitutive about family, or saving, or inclusive institutions. They're merely cultural constructs.

The irony of the "availability of Exit" is that neoreactionism is supposed to provide the ideal framework of a society; everyone should, apparently, enjoy what it has to offer. No one would want to exit. If people do want to exit, then it undermines its own claims to legitimacy.

I'll reach for Stephenson again and suggest that Neoreaction posits a sort of phylistic world with an explosion of geographical boundaries, and that Neoreactors themselves will organize parallel to the Victorian phyle in style and substance - concerned with authenticity, order, and generally being "above" those hooked to the matter tubes.

I can't comment since I haven't read the book, but that's an interesting analogy.

If anything that arises is automatically natural, so is the the line between natural and unnatural.

I was trying to be clever in my language. I'm saying that there is no line because conceiving of things as "natural" or "unnatural" is simply unsustainable. Everything is either natural, or it's unnatural. There's no way to draw a sustainable line between them.

I'm sure there is need here for some other terminology than "natural" vs "unnatural" to be completely rigorous, but stating that there is no "natural" order to which humans are supposed to conform is not to say there isn't a sort of ("universally ordained"?) order to which humans are supposed to conform. Of course Progressivism/the Cathedral suggests there is a sort of order to which humans are supposed to conform. The neoreactionary claim is the Cathedral's order is ultimately destructive in every sense of the word (to include self destructive, as a parasite dies with the host).

"Supposed to" doesn't really make much sense to me. Even if neoreactionism is better than other programs - an entirely subjective opinion - it can't propose its stature as naturally necessary or best for all people, thus assuming it conforms to a level of objective reality. That seems contradictory to me.

Well Neoreaction certainly isn't anarchism, so that it wants it's own form of coercive government is a given. It would need more analysis before referring to it as "merely another Cathedral". I don't think it is, any more so than any other non-Progressive (particularly summed up as "non-Democratic") governments aren't necessarily "Cathedralistic". Democracy is essentially inseperable from the Cathedral. When the Cathedral appears to be damaged by democratic outcomes, those outcomes cannot (by definition) be Democracy. See Egypt for the most glaring and recent foreign example.

I'm not entirely clear on "Cathedralistic." I assume that all political paradigms - fascism, communism, democracy, republic, etc. etc. - fall under this rubric, or definition. Furthermore, I don't understand why the Cathedral, by definition, precludes the "availability of exit."

 

[SentinelSlain]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/what-happened-when-antifgm-campaigner-asked-people-in-the-street-to-sign-a-petition-in-favour-of-mutilating-girls-8908877.html

I think this kind of thing goes some way to give credence to right wing people in the US who fear the "liberal elite". There really are some absolute simpletons in this world who've combined being very well educated and from a middle class background with an incessant and child like belief that everything other than and before Western civilization was basically the noble savage and everything within it is "mean" and ruled by angry white males, who have to be stopped because that's what the social science lecture said, with no deeper thinking being involved.

 

[Einherjar86]

FGM is a horrible, painful, and potentially life-threatening practice. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, nor would I argue that cultures in which it is practiced should continue to practice it.

But does it justify occupying a country, intervening in cultural practice and forcing a people (through legal or judicial coercion) to stop performing it? If there are cultures where it is institutionalized (I'm not sure where this is the case; they do it in the Middle East, but I think it's mostly done in secret), then I wouldn't advocate Western political intervention in order to stop it.

I'm not opposed to missionary trips at all; Christian missionaries were influential vessels of cultural exchange from the late Middle Ages onward. I would suggest that philosophical envoys would be the most efficient and least invasive option. But even that, purely by the gesture of the act itself, is (I'm not ashamed to say it) somewhat arrogant.

 

[SentinelSlain]

The left wish that was the argument. These days, with multi faceted globalisation, the whole "that's their culture/ this is our culture" idea is a bit flawed, not totally outdated, but not perfect. Basically, plenty of kids get sent abroad from the UK to have the "operation" and a few times shitty doctors in the UK have done it here I think. People move around, having morality that begins and ends with a national boundary is bullshit.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've been listening to Ray Brassier's lecture on Nick Land (which, as of the academic moment, is one of the few scholarly considerations of Land's work), and rethinking some of his essays, and I think this is an undeniable facet of his philosophy:

"Death is inherently productive and generates the production of production."

This is why I believe that Land's notion of conservatism coincides with an understanding of death, and also why Land has an essay called "Making it with Death," in which he writes:

A consummate libidinal materialism is distinguished by its complete indifference to the category of work. Wherever there is labour or struggle there is a repression of the raw creativity which is the atheological sense of matter and which - because of its anegoic effortlessness - seems identical with dying.

Work, Land goes on to say, is an "idealist principle." I can't square Land's new stratified social program with his philosophical understanding of matter and production. I do see why Land opposes any form of collectivism, or any political praxis that inhibits production; he believes in what Brassier calls an intensification of matter, which breaks down and dissolves all inhibitions on production.

The extraordinary feature of Land's philosophy is that it is entirely indifferent toward the conscious, egoic subject (hence the use of the term "anegoic"). This isn't to say that it rejects subjectivity or consciousness - consciousness is simply irrelevant for Land's libidinal materialism. But here's the real kicker: if consciousness is in-itself an inhibition on intensified production, then it stands to reason that Land should not only disregard consciousness - he should deny and oppose it entirely. This is the logical conclusion of a truly valid, uninhibited production of matter (and this filters all the way up the hierarchy, into modern modes of human socio-economic production); but Land has never made this move, and instead seems to want to preserve consciousness. In fact, the latter is necessary if he wishes to formulate social programs whose purpose is to ameliorate and effectualize human social experience.

The contradiction arises when we see that the philosophy underpinning Land's proposed socio-economic praxis poses a strong thrust against any notion of symbiotic, facilitative consciousness. In the context of libidinal materialism, consciousness appears as prohibitive.

This is the link to Brassier's lecture:

http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/archive/audio/2010_09_14/2010_09_14_Accelerationism_RayBrassier.mp3

 

[Dak]

There's nothing natural or constitutive about family, or saving, or inclusive institutions. They're merely cultural constructs.

The irony of the "availability of Exit" is that neoreactionism is supposed to provide the ideal framework of a society; everyone should, apparently, enjoy what it has to offer. No one would want to exit. If people do want to exit, then it undermines its own claims to legitimacy.

Just saying something is a construct doesn't argue against something being - shall we say - a "best practice". The family unit of sorts (I won't say the "nuclear family") has many practical functions, not the least of which is ensuring the survival of offspring (natural). Human children require a relatively intensive/extensive amount of support and nurturing compared to most other species. The family unit (of some arrangement) is as natural for humans as it is for turtles to lay their eggs in the sand and leave them. Of course, this is abandonment, and turns out poorly for many of the baby turtles - but they birth many more young to even the odds of some surviving. Humans birth less, and so must take greater care. And normally, quality of care and # of offspring have somewhat an inverse relation across the spectrum of animals.

Saving for "dry spells" is observed across animal and plant kingdom. It's a best practice. Some animals also make use of capital goods (tools). The exceptional executive function in humans allows for longer chains of more complex planning.

"Supposed to" doesn't really make much sense to me. Even if neoreactionism is better than other programs - an entirely subjective opinion - it can't propose its stature as naturally necessary or best for all people, thus assuming it conforms to a level of objective reality. That seems contradictory to me.

Depends on what is meant by "best". I think we'd need to look at production for understanding.

I'm not entirely clear on "Cathedralistic." I assume that all political paradigms - fascism, communism, democracy, republic, etc. etc. - fall under this rubric, or definition. Furthermore, I don't understand why the Cathedral, by definition, precludes the "availability of exit."

Democracy does not "work" without the herding of public opinion into narrow channels. Bernays stated this most clearly a century ago and the Cathedral is the totality of "opinion forming organs". The Cathedral is different from previous attempts at forming opinion because it has no leader. There is no Goebbels, there is no Ministry of Truth.

http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/moldbug.htm

Certainly, the synchronization is not coordinated by any human hierarchical authority. (Yes, there are accreditation agencies, but a Harvard or a Stanford could easily fight them.) The system may be Orwellian, but it has no Goebbels. It produces Gleichschaltung without a Gestapo. It has a Party line without a Party. A neat trick.

Exit - or secession/expatriation - is derided from every sector of the Cathedral, and secession is certainly not allowable (internally of course, groups may always secede to become democratic).

This falls within the Voluntaryist arena of thought - organization should be voluntary.

It isn't reframing; that's how the death drive is understood. It's only been framed in one way.

Also, it isn't a conscious decision on the part of the organism, as even non-conscious organisms are beholden to this drive. Freud hypothesizes it as a condition of life itself. If Land wants to theorize the purportedly natural behavior of human beings, that's it.

Maybe the problem is using the word "drive". Death is the ultimate unconscious telos of living things (even stars). This doesn't mean they are "driven" towards it in the way we normally use the word.

I've been listening to Ray Brassier's lecture on Nick Land (which, as of the academic moment, is one of the few scholarly considerations of Land's work), and rethinking some of his essays, and I think this is an undeniable facet of his philosophy:

"Death is inherently productive and generates the production of production."

This is why I believe that Land's notion of conservatism coincides with an understanding of death, and also why Land has an essay called "Making it with Death," in which he writes:


Work, Land goes on to say, is an "idealist principle." I can't square Land's new stratified social program with his philosophical understanding of matter and production. I do see why Land opposes any form of collectivism, or any political praxis that inhibits production; he believes in what Brassier calls an intensification of matter, which breaks down and dissolves all inhibitions on production.

This seems to bring us full circle (pun material in there) via "Creative Destruction" - a term derived from Marx by an Austrian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

In Schumpeter's vision of capitalism, innovative entry by entrepreneurs was the disruptive force that sustained economic growth, even as it destroyed the value of established companies and laborers that enjoyed some degree of monopoly power derived from previous technological, organizational, regulatory, and economic paradigms.

The old, lame, weak are culled and the faster, stronger, better take over - until they too become old, lame, and weak (speaking of businesses, processes, and products rather than people). Without the creation we merely have the destruction. There's a lot of Taoism in this approach - and Land isn't in the Orient just because he doesn't like Fish 'n Chips.

(Schumpeter also apparently believed capitalism undermined itself - which seems problematic given the taoistic nature)

The extraordinary feature of Land's philosophy is that it is entirely indifferent toward the conscious, egoic subject (hence the use of the term "anegoic"). This isn't to say that it rejects subjectivity or consciousness - consciousness is simply irrelevant for Land's libidinal materialism. But here's the real kicker: if consciousness is in-itself an inhibition on intensified production, then it stands to reason that Land should not only disregard consciousness - he should deny and oppose it entirely. This is the logical conclusion of a truly valid, uninhibited production of matter (and this filters all the way up the hierarchy, into modern modes of human socio-economic production); but Land has never made this move, and instead seems to want to preserve consciousness. In fact, the latter is necessary if he wishes to formulate social programs whose purpose is to ameliorate and effectualize human social experience.

The contradiction arises when we see that the philosophy underpinning Land's proposed socio-economic praxis poses a strong thrust against any notion of symbiotic, facilitative consciousness. In the context of libidinal materialism, consciousness appears as prohibitive.

This is the link to Brassier's lecture:

http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/archive/audio/2010_09_14/2010_09_14_Accelerationism_RayBrassier.mp3

Taking the assumption that only humans are "conscious", it seems obvious that relative to nonconsciousness - consciousness is currently superior for uninhibited production. If production itself is the ultimate driver - won't it know when consciousness is no longer enabling but prohibiting? Consciousness, and therefore we, can't know.

I do agree that trichotomocracy doesn't appear on it's surface to have much/anything to do with his philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

To qualify that last point: I tend to think of consciousness as representational. That is, consciousness is representational in its very reflexivity; it can come to terms with its surroundings, with concepts, and with itself in a representational way.

Land's philosophy is anti-representationalist, and this follows Deleuze & Guattari. For D&G, and for Land, representation marks a level of stratification. If libidinal materialism pushes for a degree zero material substrate (i.e. matter as the production of production lacking all inhibiting factors), then consciousness is always-already an inhibiting factor. As representation, consciousness marks a stratification that libidinal materialism aims to tear down.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-11/what-confidential-1974-memo-paul-volcker-reveals-about-americas-true-views-gold-rese

Telling us what some already knew.

Just over four years ago, we highlighted a recently declassified top secret 1968 telegram to the Secretary of State from the American Embassy in Paris, in which the big picture thinking behind the creation of the IMF's Special Drawing Right (rolled out shortly thereafter in 1969), or SDRs, was laid out. In that memo it was revealed that despite what some may think, the fundamental driver behind the promotion of a supranational reserve paper currency had one goal in mind: allowing the US to "remain masters of gold."

But not truly national masters:

To encourage and facilitate the eventual demonetization of gold, our position is to keep the present gold price, maintain the present Bretton Woods agreement ban against official gold purchases at above the official price and encourage the gradual disposition of monetary gold through sales in the private market.

That combined with other sections explicitly state a strategy to get countries to trade gold for paper and then to pass on the gold to insiders (who else could get gold from the IMF etc?) Edit: While suppressing the gold price - still ongoing.

Modern Alchemy, turning paper into gold. Of course, the dollar managed to subvert SDRs in the interim, but the SDRs are immediately at the forefront of suggestions for a "new" global monetary system. It's not new, it's been on hold for the last half a century, and the strategy is the same whether it's the dollar or the SDR.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Dak/Ein debate, activate!

 

[Dak]

We can debate "subconscious" and banal racism all day, but Affirmative Action is blatant racism, and ultimately hurts "race" relations and cheapens the achievements of those both within and those perceived to possibly have benefited from it unduly (Which is to say, all those not otherwise qualifying on their own nonracial merits) - the unspoken question as to whether some minority has achieved X based on ability or based on a selection quota. It undermines true equality and if it weren't for the Margaret Sangers of the world, I would merely chalk this up as typical Progressive ignorance. The Poisoned Gift.

 

[Einherjar86]

I agree with Dak that affirmative action is ineffective (sorry Jimmy), but probably not for the same reason that Dak does (you're welcome Jimmy).

Seeing as how I attribute racism not to individuals but to a system in general, I don't see affirmative action as racist. If an African American fails to procure a position because his racial genealogy has inhibited his ability to accrue capital and work up a decent resume, and not because the hiring manager harbors racial bias, then the affirmative action itself isn't racist; if the attempt is to organize a more even and equal social field, then affirmative action is actually working against racism as it has been historically conditioned and constituted within Western capitalism. It has nothing to do, in my opinion, with personal achievements or capability.

Now, that doesn't mean that personal achievements and abilities don't play a part; they most certainly do, I simply don't think it has to do with racism. Affirmative action does place minority groups into positions they might not otherwise be able to attain, but it does nothing to prepare them for those positions. I have no doubt that affirmative action has helped many people, but it has also hurt countless others.

The emphasis shouldn't be on job placement, but on education and preparation. Unfortunately, the ideological underpinnings of our economy and culture cause us to place far more value on the notion of getting a good job, so much so that we're willing to forego preparation for said job.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Dak]

Well that certainly is the result: People are placed into positions they aren't prepared for, for a variety of reasons we could spend pages on (didn't try, didn't have the "capital", shunning, etc). This ultimately hurts not only them, but from a racial view can hurt other minorities who are trying, etc. The NFL has the "Rooney" rule, which is almost Affirmative Action, and it isnt working, and when black head coaching candidates are hired it appears almost token, as none are really distinguishing themselves outside of Tony Dungy. And Tony Dungy is pretty Booker T-ish. On the other hand, we needed no Rooney Rule to see the takeover of player positions by minorities in what used to be a "white sport". Even the QB position has finally become equal opportunity without a quota.

The "get a good job" mentality is completely corporatist, and it is parroted by the totality of the Cathedral and the political demagogues. We can make jobs all day long - but not necessarily good ones, and that's because the good in a good job - monetarily speaking obviously - comes from either creating value or sponging off the value of someone else. The "good jobs" within the political sector are the latter, as are most in the FIRE sector. I'll leave out BigAg and BigPharma etc since they do create value to some degree. But bankers and bureaucracy in *this* system just transfer value from the unconnected to the connected(which of course includes themselves).

We need to create wealth via value - not "jobs".