Kicking. Squealing.
Hugo Schwyzer. The same guy who led a few Slut Walks has now done this on Twitter with the caption “44 year-old white guy in a hoodie”:
He’s referencing the “Million Hoodie March” movement that has sprung up in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s tragic death and is just being inadvertently shit upon by people like this. I’ll get right back to the hoodie, but first, Schwyzer also recently wrote a post about how George Zimmerman’s actions are an expression of white men’s fear (btw George Zimmerman is half Hispanic/half Jewish) over black men’s masculinity as well as the “white savior complex”:
As Prof. David J. Leonard points out in a brilliant essay, millions of Americans learned the names of two black men this month: Joseph Kony and Trayvon Martin. Both became famous because white men labeled them as evils from which the world needed saving. The parallel goes further. Jason Russell, the head of the Invisible Children charity that started the viral Kony2012 campaign, and George Zimmerman each played essentially the same part: that of white male savior, protecting Ugandan children and Florida suburbanites from the real or imagined dangers presented by two black men.
Schwyzer’s citation of Jason Russell and Joseph Kony is interesting here. Schwyzer sees Russell as demonizing the black Kony while others (and probably Russell himself) see Russell defending poor Ugandan blacks. And this gets to both the hoodie and the slut. Schwyzer is grabbing hold of the symbols being used to define as social dangers the groups he hopes to protect. White savior complex with a bit of marketing. Though this may come off as flippant, it’s not meant to be: if Schwyzer wants to embrace the thing that he believes is responsible for the unfair bias and stereotype of blacks and sexually active women, he should wear black face or dress as a woman, respectively. But besides that, does he or anyone else in the #millionhoodiemarch movement really want to boil down the issue of Martin’s death to one article of clothing? I thought that to them it was the color of Trayvon Martin’s skin that led to his death and the poor police work that didn’t properly punish his killer, not his clothing.
On the hoodie. Yes, it can be a useful and functional article of clothing, especially in the rain which set the scene for Martin’s shooting. But the hoodie is also a symbol of countercultural cachet. A recent hip hop song my Omarion titled, simply, “Hoodie” doesn’t mention the functionality of the hoodie – it’s warmth or it’s protection from the elements. Instead, it mentions what it means to signal about the wearer: “Hustlers, gangstas, bustas, ridas (They goin’ out wit they hoodie on)”.
At the Washington Post, Elizabeth Flock attempts a brief hoodie history without even mentioning the British chavs whose yobbery is closely associated with the style. But at City Journal, Harry Stein writes:
The pretense is that the hoodie is an innocuous clothing item or, at any rate, that it is unfairly seen as carrying negative associations. There’s a word for this: nonsense. The hoodie isn’t like a letterman’s jacket or a t-shirt or a pair of jeans. It does indeed carry associations—for many, ominous ones. Like pants worn low to reveal the shorts underneath, hoodies are part of a style favored by gangbangers and drug dealers and others who hold life exceedingly cheap; which is to say, under certain circumstances, it is apt to heighten another’s uncertainty and fear, and bring potential danger for the wearer.
Initial studies on the priming stereotype and hoodies conducted in the U.K. suggest an increase in the anxiety and fear of study-participants when faced with hoodie-wearing and non hoodie-wearing confederates (not statistically significant in this particular study). Hoodies activate negative bias. This is an instinct in observers, not a conscious decision.
While Trayvon Martin’s death should never be excused by the fact that he wore a hoodie, the movement to encourage young men to don the hoodie just because they shouldn’t be judged is the wrong takeaway message to spread. As a cultural styling, the hoodie is an escape, an obfuscation, a disguise, or a way to express darkness, mystery, or swagger. It’s a den of cloth that signals to others not to mess with the occupant. The face and hands are hidden. As Kevin Braddock wrote in the Guardian in the wake of the London riots last summer:
All clothing is political in the sense that it communicates a message about how the wearer wishes to be perceived, and face coverings and headgear can be particularly charged: the use of balaclavas by sectarian paramilitaries, bandanas worn across the face, or caps worn low to disguise the eyes, represent a seizing of anonymity and a self-exemption from public identification.
The hoodie-wearing youth is perhaps stuck between a rock and a hard place – staying compact and on-point to ward off neighborhood thuggery but also evoking the fear of the citizenry and reaction of police. The rest of the world will react to the hoodie, in general, just as they react to anything that is shielded from plain sight.
And even then, to adopt the hoodie because of its attachment to an innocent victim like Trayvon Martin is to ignore that the hoodie could then be associated with all of the non-innocent acts carried out by discretion-seeking youths. So the question is, are Schwyzer and the other hoodie marchers trying to protect the integrity of the hoodie or the name of Trayvon Martin? Ditch the hoodies; hold on to Martin’s memory.
You’re a smart blogger Piggy. But intelligence has its downsides. You have a tendency to over-intellectualise and blather on.
the hoodie-wearing youth is perhaps stuck between a rock and a hard place – staying compact and on-point to ward off neighborhood thuggery but also evoking the fear of the citizenry and reaction of police.
Come on….
Kids wear hoodies because they are the trend of the time. They want to look like thugs. Schwyzer looks like a silly old fool wearing one. The ‘Million Hoodie March’ is a stupid echo of the ‘Million Man March’ along the same lines as the constant idiotic ‘gates’ we have in newspaper headines.
‘Nuff said.
I hope your shaming language encourages both overweight white sluts (wearing tube tops and daisy dukes) and low IQ black thugs (wearing hoodies and loose pants with no belts) to join forces in SPLC-organized slut-thug walks in all major cities in the US, culminating in an orgy/gunfight in a public park across from city hall. For those of us who are resigned to watching Rome burn, it would be quite fitting (no pun intended).
This psychological phenomenon that I’ll for now refer to as negrophilia for lack of a better term: it’s fascinating, if you can think about it with some emotional detachment. Whites who have little contact with blacks sometimes sentimentalize them. But it’s safe to assume that someone like Schwyzer doesn’t live in a bubble. Is it practical interests of political alliance that motivate him? Or a quasi-homoerotic idealizations of blacks?
Obviously there is a psychological root to his incitement of blacks to hatred and consequent violence — and this re exactly what he, and the media as a whole, are doing — particularly as he’s setting himself up to be collateral damage: black attackers can’t tell liberal whites from other whites. See Yglesias.
Certainly, an abstract sense of justice isn’t what motivates him. Within the past two weeks a thirteen-year-old white schoolboy was set on fire by a group of older black teenagers. And an 86-year old WWII vet’s wife was raped and murdered by a black in a home invasion in Oklahoma. Schwyzer isn’t writing about that. He does not nod to the context of something like 2,000 blacks murdering whites each year (if someone knows what the actual figure is I’d like to see it).
So what is Schwyzer’s motivation — cynical political alliances? a masochistic psychology? something else?
…
Along a similar line of thought, I saw an everyday example of life in 21st century America. I was on the subway and next to me was a fat black woman, about 25 years old, with a hard angry look on her face. Next to her was an ok-looking white girl of about the same age, who looked as normal as girls can look. The black girl sneezed, the white one said “God bless you,” and the black one shot her a hateful glare. That is all.
Now- as with Schwyzer, I am fascinated by the psychology operating here. Where does the white girl go from here? Was this little indignity one sting that, if multiplied by similar incidents, drives her to explode like Emma West?
All of us in the Manosphere understand the axiom that women are submissive. To MEN. Alpha men, to be precise. With other women, they’re everything but submissive. Fema femini lupus. Thus, even if you accept Whiskey’s feverish arguments about how women love the abuse wrought on them by blacks, this still doesn’t explain a white woman’s apparently willing political and cultural subordination to a black woman.
Pingback: Ditch the Hoodie » Bydio
The amount of attention paid to the Trayvon Martin story is ridiculous. It’s a Great White Defendant case, as Sailer says, even though the perpetrator is not even quite white. For balance, someone should collect a list of, say, people killed by blacks in Florida recently without any attention from the national media.
I agree with Podsnap. My kids like to wear hoodies.
And Hugo does look ridiculous in his.
@JL
Good point. George Zimmerman isn’t exactly Sherman McCoy, is he?
And if anyone in the manosphere hasn’t read Bonfire of the Vanities, what the hell are you waiting for?
PA,
Hugo probably sees white men as more of his competition than black men. He knows there are some black men who are going to be more attractive to white women than he is. They are small in number compared to the white men who are more masculine than he is.
PA – you seem to be stricken with over-analysis syndrome like Piggy, or probably you guys are just young -
But it’s safe to assume that someone like Schwyzer doesn’t live in a bubble. Is it practical interests of political alliance that motivate him? Or a quasi-homoerotic idealizations of blacks?
Just groupthink. Best to follow the herd. No cynical motives. It feels good. Just do it.
Not at all. For Sandusky it wasn’t groupthink, and it isn’t group thinking on SA and 4chan that post non-stop interracial porn, and along with reddit discuss their fantasies openly. These liberal men have cuckold fetishes about young blacks taking their wives, and similarly homoerotic fantasies about young blacks taking themselves.
Schwyzer is specifically citing “Fear of the Black Penis” as the impetus for fearing black men. The guy isn’t even capable of looking at negroes without visions of cock floating through his mind apparently. That’s not just “groupthink”.
Let’s not over intellectualize here Hugo needs his ass kicked. He obviously avoided a good ass kicking his whole life and is in desperate need of one. Hugo is a prancing little man-boy who exhibits tons of smugness. This could all be remedied rather quickly catch Hugo alone in an alley and beat this little bitch with in an inch of his life. Knock him down make him cry then walk over him. Let him know in no uncertain terms there will be more to come if he continues to act like such a little bitch. This man is 44 years old and he is about 30 years to late for this treatment.
The groupthink is to side with minorities. Schywzer justifies that by indulging in ‘othering’ stereotyping – ie ‘My opponents are redneck eunuchs who want to lynch black men’. That really doesn’t prove that he has a quasi-homoerotic idealizations of blacks.
The sexual hang ups of a small minority of white Americans are a different thing entirely. Those quite obviously revolve around a masochistic/sadistic wish to see women degraded by having animalistic sex – ie with black men.The basement dwelling men-children of 4chan would fit pretty squarely in that category.
Muay has got to the crux of the matter.
MuayThai, go right ahead and kick Schwyzer’s pixels with your pixels. Podsnap, working toward understanding the adversary is not “overthinking.” Anti-intellectualism (along with other things) is the reason we’re where we are today.
And I’m really interested in questions I raised re. women in my comment above. I’ve never seen it discussed.
Podsnap:
thanks for your critique. i know i have a tendency to overintellectualize, but i think you back up my argument when you write:
“Kids wear hoodies because they are the trend of the time. They want to look like thugs”
i don’t see how you don’t see that kids wanting to look like thugs is part of the issue.
@MuayTyson
The guy does have a punchable face, doesn’t he? Just look into those blank, soulless eyes. Dude creeps me out.
So what is Schwyzer’s motivation — cynical political alliances? a masochistic psychology? something else?
Simple. Schwyzer is the one with the douchey “White Savior” complex.
Outrageously outrageous outrage over Zimmerman amounts to nothing more than grandstanding. “Look at what a good person I am! I care!” Most people don’t have a White Savior complex. Why? Because they don’t care — they are simply preoccupied with their own lives.
A Seminole County grand jury will hear evidence about the slaying of Martin on April 10th; it is reasonable to predict Zimmerman will eventually be tried and convicted of either voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder. That won’t stop the progressive grievance industry from doing their shtick for the next three weeks though.
The eyes are the hallmark of profound narcissism. It is sight common to many homos I come across.
Ditch the hoodies??
I wear a yellow hoodie under my brown mink for a practical-gal winter survival look.
Exactly. The reason why the hoodie is problematic is because hiding your face from people is a great way to obscure your intentions toward them. The primary means of non-verbal communication is by looking at someone’s face and if you can’t see that it only makes sense that you would be apprehensive and even assume the worst.
Sure, it’s one thing to wear one when it’s raining or cold outside—but I see kids (black, white, Latino, and increasingly Asian) wearing them when it’s sunny and 70 F. It’s anti-social behavior and the only upside is that the vast majority of people age out of it.
The “Million Hoodie March” is yet another example of people’s anger and grief leading them to undertake actions that counterproductive (in addition to the productive actions being taken). The ostensible point of the “march” is to say that wearing a hoodie shouldn’t get you shot…and this is absolutely correct. But I’m worried it will also entrench the notion that young people—young blacks, in particular—have the right to engage in anti-social behavior just because. That’s wrong and helps no one.
Great! I’m happy to hear that the “white savior” complex is over.
No more Kony 2012. No affirmative action. End all aid to Africa. Lock down that border airtight. This guy might be a WN, you never know.
Hugo Schywzer does need to get his ass kicked.
Piggy
I agree – the fact that kids dress like thugs and then complain when they get treated as such is relevant to the Zimmerman case. It’s very symptomatic of the age. As is the pathetic glee in Schwyzer’s eyes in the photo above as he gets to dress up like a kid/thug and activist.
It’s just that it’s obvious. You should spend your time on other stuff.
Podsnap,
I enjoy wringing every last drop out of these stories though. And other stuff can be written another time.
But it clearly is not obvious to a lot of people that hoodies aren’t just the same as tuxedos or just any article of clothing – thus the stupid #millionhoodiemarch and guys like Hugo Schwyzer. They didn’t get the memo.
I honestly don’t think Hugo is gay. Gay men are totally bored by women and women’s issues, and this isn’t the case with Hugo. I think because he is half Jewish, he still sees non Jewish white men as his main competition and is jealous of many of them. It is usually lower middle class white men or very athletic white men who are competitive with black men.
Lara,
Hugo has admitted to doing gay things.
He might be gay, you guys would probably be able to tell better than I would. I’ve just never gotten the impression gay men had any interest in feminism.
I get the impression gay men are completely disinterested in women, except for maybe a few family members.
It’s possible that he just made up past gay acts for sensationalism and lib cred.
His face, eyes in particular, strike me as those of a guy who likes to bait older/more alpha men and authority figures in general. His photo gives off that kind of passive aggressive quality. Like he’s pressing your buttons to abuse him. Smallish smart-mouthed kids without good male role models sometimes act that way.
Yes Lara, gay men are completely disinterested in women, except for..the entire fashion industry.
Pingback: Corollaries to “The Great White Defendant” « Gucci Little Piggy
huh, #1 who cares if he’s gay… all that matters, or should matter is he is worthless. Gay, strait, xenophilic it dosent matter he’s WORTHLESSNESS incarnate.
#2 so hooddies on hood’s or wannabes = an expression of style or culture aka “not bad”. But 13 years ago, when some idiot phyco kids wore trench-coats HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!!!!! we must stop this fashion statement / outerwear garment of choice NOW~! think of the children!!!!
Geez all the more proof that these worthlessnesses are wishy-washy. You can tell by their actions and words, their only real goal is to demonize the white male every chance they get. yep even when the villain in the story isn’t even a member of the white community, or self identifies as a white. It’s the evil white man that made him shoot some kid just walking home.
Its funny, the “super powers” attributed to white skin sorta blow the shit out of melanin theory don’t they.
I hope this case takes a twist like the Duke lacrosse thing. It’s very similar, everyone is already rushing to judgement. The last three famous black on white rapes have all been hoaxes now that I think about it. Duke, Strauss-Kahn, and Brawley.
The Psychology of Leftism from Ted Kaczynski aka the Unabomber:
“THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
“leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less
clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for
this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling
the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is
meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of
the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of
the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings
in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low
self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,
defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend
to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
“negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an
Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents
of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been
attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and
insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftist
anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem
almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect”
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as
strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women
may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points
out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates
America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,
“enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and
leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to
focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an
orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope
of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that
was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the
foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the
concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that
modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one
thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings
of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the
concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are
antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior
because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or
inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or
blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
“inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been
brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith
in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but
he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant
behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings
of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as
individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the
leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization
or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only
a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the
process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe
such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized
leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our
society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists
push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more
money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they
regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into
the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just
like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the
last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white
man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in
what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It
can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food,
listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going
to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express
itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more
leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform
to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical
subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing
the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white.
They want to make black fathers “responsible.” they want black gangs
to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what
kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what
religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a
respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent,
is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it,
the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the
system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the
oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our
society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have
gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important
principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,
violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by
committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized
these restraints have been more confining for them than for others;
hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their
rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing
thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is
complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take
several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim
only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies
in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our
society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and
defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially
noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And
today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any
previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to
exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.”
“216. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”)
218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone.
219. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alco hot then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.
220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.
225. before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.
229. The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like “racism, ” “sexism, ” “homophobia, ” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism ” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, and political correctness.”
PA:
Kudos for “Negophilia.”
I mean Negrophilia
After being violently mugged by 2 black teens, last jan, both of whom were wearing hoodies, I admit to extreme hoodie bias. So sue me. I ride a bus every day with a guy I call the “Chinese Nutty Professor,” he is mildly autistic, nice as can be, loves the Nebraska Cornhuskers, the Miami Dolphins and hates black teens. They are “basically animals” he tells me frequently, as we watch black teens’ all too often less than civilized behavior on the county buses.
Pingback: Details Of The Born Ride Youth Hoodie