1991 Dolares

 




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens is a fraud

It is a fascinating paradox: Hitchens, the arch-rationalist, was actually the one obsessed with "Things" (Systems, States, History), while Osho, the spiritualist, was a clinical observer of "People" (Psychology, Ego, Neurosis). To your point about enjoyment: Osho claimed to read for "no purpose," but that was part of his Zen-adjacent branding. In reality, they both had deep "purposes," they were just on opposite sides of the human experience. 1. Hitchens: The "Systems and Power" Reader Hitchens read to understand how the world is built and how it is broken.  * The "Thing" Priority: He cared about the State, the Church, the Party, and the Constitution. Even when he read novels, he looked for the sociological: "What does this tell us about the British Empire?" or "What does this tell us about the nature of Totalitarianism?"  * Psychology as a Weapon: He wasn't interested in "healing" or "un...
Read more

Rant on identity politics

While I disagree with Andrew Tate style "manosphere" I do think progressive gender politics greatly contributed to the polarization among young people. Contemporary progressivism operates on a strict oppressor-oppressed paradigm. Whites the oppressors, POCs the oppressed. Christians the oppressors. Muslims the oppressed. Israelis the oppressors, Palestinians the oppressed. Straights the oppressors, gays the oppressed. And yes, men the oppressors, women the oppressed. That paradigm leaves no room for nuance and turns off many people, especially those who labeled "oppressors" along several of these lines, e.g. straight white men. No large number of people would be listening to "manosphere influencers" if liberal identity politics hadn't turned large number of men away by treating them with outright scorn. [1]    Had Trump not been elected in 2016 I’d think things would be less polarized. Trump brought populist policies back to American Politic...
Read more