Researching some stuff on the Great Awokening and decided to revisit the Charlie Hebdo murders and various responses to it. This open letter to PEN written by Teju Cole and co-signed by hundreds of other mainstream writers like Joyce Carol Oates is as striking now as it was when I read it 10 years ago.
This was an early indication for me that something was very very wrong in the world of American intellectual life and that we were headed down a dark path.
The context here is hat PEN awarded Charlie Hebdo with a "Courage" award in the aftermath of the murders. Hardly a provocation from a Free Speech organization. But the signatories of this letter didn't like that. Sure, the Hebdo cartoonists were brutally slaughtered for drawing a picture, but, well they were ... racists!
This really is a perfect encapsulation of the who/whom logic that would become the engine of the Great Awokening.
Other thing about Charlie Hebdo, it was the first time I saw the NPC update happen in real time...
Right thinking people were initially appalled and supported CH unconditionally. But over the days and weeks that followed, they changed their views to align with the letter above
I observed this with personal acquaintances. Smart libs inside of academia. Their instincts were right. This wasn't complicated or nuanced at all. But very quickly they lost the courage to say so directly. Suddenly this was a moral gray area.
It really was shocking to see.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Marcellus Williams, Adnan Syed, Steven Avery, Central Park Five... all of these high profile cases where the guy is obviously guilty, why does the lib insist beyond reason the guy is not guilty and make impassioned moralistic pleas that we all submit to their delusion?
At bottom, despite the trappings of cosmopolitanism, the lib is a provincial, small-minded creature. The lib, for all his openness and presumptions to empathy, cannot see beyond himself, beyond his own inclinations, cannot imagine there are people who are not at all like him
The lib cannot imagine, because the lib is not like this, that people murder, savagely, and then act contrite, sad, can be "just a kid" and simultaneously be a sociopathic lunatic.
They see these men and think, "He is just like me, my son. I wouldn't do that. How could they?"
This is actually perfectly revealing of how the Richards—and this class of formerly right “centrists”—come to their politics. It’s not about policy or ideology, but embarrassment over the less sophisticated parts of the right, the narcissism of small differences toward the chuds
If you’re wondering why these guys obsess over the vulgarity of the right while ignoring the derangements of the left, this is why. The Richards are interested firstly in themselves, what makes them personally look good or bad.
It’s this too of course. Cynical brown nosing of who they perceive as the media gatekeepers and their future paymasters.
The signature characteristic of the leftist is resentment for people who are richer than he is. The lowest expression of this resentment is the blind violence of the commie. The midwit version (see below) is vague, abstracted appeals to “fairness,” while the highest version (see the thread linked in reply), at least rationalizes it by making arguments about capital velocity or market efficiency or whatever, but it’s all the same thing: that other guy is richer than me which makes me feel inferior and I don’t like it.
The shared premise, one layer above the petty resentment, is that simply by virtue of being rich you must have done something immoral, and that all wealth above a certain threshold (ie wealth above whatever social class I’m currently in) is inherently ill-gotten and undeserved
I know it’s been talked about a lot around here, but I finally saw First Man and it’s even better than I could’ve imagined. An A-tier film, not only about the space-race, but about masculinity, and the costs and requirements of great civilizational achievement. Must watch.
There’s a great moment highlighting the social-political tensions of embarking on a project of this scale where Kurt Vonnegut makes a passive-aggressive plea to spend the money instead on making New York City safe, and communist poet Gil Scot Heron recites “Whitey on the Moon”
It’s a perfect representation of the leftist resistance to great achievements, their small-minded, provincial obsessions with the low, the many and the marginal to the total exclusion of the potentials of the high and the few.
A minor academic book called "The Party Decides" was published in 2008 arguing that party insiders, donors, media, etc. all coordinate behind the scenes to pre-empt voter preferences to make presidential nominations despite the "democratic" pretext of the modern primary process...
The book had a moment in 2016 when both Trump and Bernie Sanders looked like they might defy this thesis and return the selection process to the voters in direct opposition to party preferences.
Trump prevailed.
Bernie did not.
In the aftermath of Trump becoming president, despite residual GOP-insider efforts to thwart his administration, the Republican Party was ultimately remade in his image. This came into full focus at the convention last week. Trump won. His voters won. The GOP insiders lost.
Got started on my Khmer Rouge reading by the leading American scholar on the subject. In the first 30 pages I encounter a totally unnecessary political claim about biological race, followed by a ham-handed reframing of the KR as not truly communist but instead “reactionary”
This all follows a long intro where the main antagonist is US/Nixon/, who certainly were catalysts, but while completely washing over the role of the North Vietnamese. All a bit surprising until I did quick author search and discovered he was a KR apologist in the 70’s
The book is Ben Kiernan’s The Pol Pot Regime. There’s a lot of good info in here and I’m sure it’s extremely thoroughly researched. But I also know certain stuff will be omitted, or selectively downplayed, and in general it’s just impossible to fully trust the analysis