If you’d asked a campaigning Hillary Clinton about the state of the world, she’d tell you it’s never been better. If you ask Jordan Peterson today, he’ll tell you it’s never been worse. If you ask me, I’d say no one should be taking advice about anything from these two wretched nozzlers. I’d say that this tepid politician or that undistinguished scholar can offer us no useful guide to anything beyond their extreme self-interest.
Still, this is what potty publishers of the West feel that we have earned: a false opposition between liberal optimist and liberal pessimist. One can accept the popular view that (a) human history was hunky-dory before Trump intervened or (b) human nature turned sour when “neo-Marxists” started whining about their identity problems. There are no more intellectual positions at this time.
We are encouraged by pro-Clinton media workers to call one view a “resistance”. We are encouraged by the resistance-to-the-resistance to identify the other as the “Intellectual Dark Web”. I would encourage you never to believe the promise of any self-devised handle. “9_4_U” is a username to be trusted no more than these others.
Moreover, you just can’t trust people engaged in an argument in which you have minimal interest. Each group of smug plonkers preserves itself by claiming that the other group of smug plonkers is a dominant and unreasonable bully. What we have in the media of the present is not so much a diminution of thought, but something that stands in for thinking.
It is absurd to call support for Clinton and the obdurately neoliberal Democratic National Committee a “resistance”. It is absurd to hold a vaguely identified “Russia” responsible not only for an election result already compromised by shoddy voting machines and racist voter registration practice but for US racism itself. Clinton resists nothing but her own unprecedented loss. And, the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is both as intellectual and as dark as an afternoon play-date with a plastic daffodil. Albeit, a bloom that blames a good deal of current trouble on the modern woman and her hobby of indiscriminate castration.
Look. Not to come over all hoity-toity, but this IDW palaver is not, as The New York Times recently had it, the challenging product of renegade minds. Like the “resistance”, it’s really the unfortunate side-effect of a commentariat led daily by the snout to the low troughs of profit. Old ideas are upcycled hastily to explain a world of inevitably increasing complexity and we have Breitbart alum Ben Shapiro of the IDW pooping out Milton Friedman like it’s 1975, or David Frum — yes, the guy who wrote the words “Axis of Evil” for George W. can be a “resistance” fighter too! — reminding us all of the Russian capacity for cyberwarfare.
The US capacity for cyberwarfare is not a matter for discussion. The US-led neoliberal project is not a matter for debate. Between the IDW’s Peterson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Sam Harris, and champions of the resistance like Stephen Colbert or Nicholas Kristof, the only true disagreement is about language and representation and behaving better, goddamnit.
A Peterson, for example, holds that the “neo-Marxist” — a creature with no actual Marxist genealogy — is oppressing all men with their nonsense blather about identity categories. A Roxane Gay, for example, will fret about bad things on the television. Accounts of political economy are based, as all else, on presumptions about human nature: some people are just naturally better than others. This is the argument used both by the IDW or the resistance — the only difference is that the IDW believes that those who already hold great power are entitled to it, whereas the resistance would like to see a more culturally and linguistically diverse group of wonderful elites.
This stuff is not actually opposed. It’s more obverse. On one side of the coin, we have the dark intellectual propositions of Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers’ view is that women tell an awful lot of lies, which is paired with the resistance feminist view that women are pure creatures who are always to be believed. Always to be believed unless they are Christina Hoff Sommers or some other enemy of a wonderful woman like Hillary Clinton whose dearest wish was to liberate the USA, nay the world, by continuing a program of neoliberalism that has resulted in a 20-year stagnation of wages etc etc.
We are all rather busy and rarely have time for anything but old, dry toast. We savour the crumbs brought to us by these mutually constituting bits of bad thought. We’re all rushing toward the end of empire and even the end of the world. Perhaps apocalyptically simple accounts of this era will ease our end.
A lovely piece Helen. Well played.
Pete Steedman
A bit ambiguous “There are no more intellectual positions at this time.“.
Did you mean “no other” or “no better”?
A blessedly brief article from this usually prolix writer but, unless another 500+ words were stuck in the samizdat machine, that’s mainly coz it didn’t have a point to make.
Other than “we is rooooned!”.
Can we hold a vaguely identified “Russia” slightly responsible for the election result , you know, because they so demonstrably are?
“Demonstrably”.
Whats the word for when someone is not trying to be ironic but they are? Ironic? 🙂
That comment is proof of the hypnotic effect of mass media
Why are people obsessed with the US election results and potential cyber-influence by Russia.
You do realise that Australian citizens were killed in an aircraft shot down by Russian artillery under the command of Russian militia supported by Russia.
Given the topic (which has been ignored in your post) why the obsession with MH17 when the yanks did the same thing. Besides – in fact – who gives a damn. You will find no one.
One positive is that just about everyone is fairly criticised however a few corrections need to be made about Jordan Peterson. As a twitter follower of his, I note his regular links to articles showing improvements in the developing world and that overall we gave never had it so good. Also his research is in the top .5% of most cited research so he is in fact a very distinguished academic.
The top .5% of most cited research? I’m not sure how that could even be measured, across academic research – the field is enormous and incredibly diverse. If you mean cited within his own field, that can certainly be measured, but Peterson hasn’t published anything scholarly for some years now, and the work he did do has a solid, but modest citation record.
Alternatively, if you meant how often he is cited in non-scholarly literature, that’s another matter and has no bearing on whether or not he’s a distinguished academic. For myself, I have reservations about any researcher who feels their work should be exempt from ethics board examination.
I think we need to calm the horse here Mish. You have made some sound points. The problem is that bits of Peterson (et al) are utilised as an argument but seldom the context in which the point was made.
The “wold getting better” is a Steven Pinker theme presented in his “The Better Angels of Our Nature” (a quote/reference from Lincoln incidentally) which may (or may not be the case. As to peer-review, to my understanding, Peterson has no problem with such examination or criticism but he does vehemently disagree with the enforced political correctness that has replaced ethics (indeed morality) with its own “version” of ideological supremacy – masquerading as rational argument.
I abandon any hope of having a sensible discussion, Kyle, when the seed article itself isn’t sensible.
Helen’s sweeping false equivalences — made specifically because she doesn’t care enough to research and analyse the specific thought of individual speakers, but only cares that they’re Not Non-o-Them Marxists (TM) — disqualifies her to engage credibly on the subject without more reading, and likewise disqualifies readers who accept her commentary without having read further. (Not a comment about Mish or yourself, but a broad comment about the dynamics of responding to an idiotically-framed discussion with informed analysis.)
This article is just ignorant, self-satisfied noisemaking. It’s rare for Helen, but the ideas she glossed are far more interesting than her ignorant opinions about them, and she really ought to respect her readership enough to know when this is true, and either read more before she writes, or find a subject she respects enough to read in before she posts.
I don’t like scorning smart people who engage sincerely, but this bloviating garbage deserves nothing better.
Way to waste an opportunity for interesting discussion. 🙁
I’m giving Crikey a go Ruv; nothing more than that. I have supported every venture to date but I am disappointed in the lack of research and acumen of their IT people; posting .pdfs or graphs (in .png or whatever) is not permitted – but easy to do under WordPress – which is what is employed as the web interface. There are other issues too.
The only writer whom I am unable to assess is Rundle. His contributions (in the main) for Crikey amount to crap but his articles in ‘The Saturday Paper’ are rather good – or possess a significant improvement over what he writes for
Crikey.
A good deal of the correcting process, of the articles, is hard (thankless) work. The irony is, as other contributors have pointed out, is that the Crikey team reckon themselves to be “superior” to what is on offer (Murdoch/Nine) elsewhere!
About a half-dozen subscribers have made similar remarks and for my part I will persevere until 30 June/19. Then I’ll undertake a review.
Yes – its actually a first-class topic and germane as one could get; but squandered by assertions of self-righteousness and unforgivable ignorance. Its NOT the first time that I have asked the question : has anyone ACTUALLY read 12 (ought to be Twelve) Rules for Life?
The sad part is that justice to the topic could be accomplished in about 1,200 words; a sketch but representative nevertheless!
Kyle, even with what Helen knew she could have done better justice to the subject than she id.
It seems that her article was triggered as a response to a fatuous New Yorker piece that treated IDW as an association, and then went on to argue that it’d support freedom of speech with more conviction if only the people using it were nicer and more agreeable.
I assume that this was Helen’s main trigger because she swallowed the New Yorker’s IDW misconception without checking it. Yet she herself has argued better in the past: that the value of freedom of expression is its ability to explore unpopular questions — in fact she has argue more strongly (and I think legitimately) that some valid questions may be so disagreeable, there’s no way to explore them agreeably.
Helen would have been within her rights to lambast the New Yorker for its spineless liberal ‘intellectual rigour only if it’s popular’ stance, acknowledge that the thoughts of Harris, Peterson et al. don’t interest her and that she therefore can’t comment on them, and argue (if she wanted) that what she’s calling ‘the Resistance’ are essentially New Yorker readers, feeding themselves pacifying answers to self-posed questions without ever asking whether the questions are the right ones, or their answers are supported by evidence.
Had she done that, I’d not have had a bad word to say about it.
Instead, she followed the New Yorker into the vacuity of its own plug-hole, conflated the authors included in IDW with pro-Clinton ‘Resistance’ (some authors listed would strongly disagree I think) and thus betrayed multiple levels of ignorance about the authors, the IDW, the various discussions around freedom of expression about disagreeable ideas, and her own narrowness of perspective.
In my view, such an article isn’t fixable with fact-checking. It shouldn’t be published in the first place by anyone seeking to be identified as a serious writer because serious writers don’t piggyback off ignorant, unresearched guff to publish yet more of the same themselves.
No more room beneath you most recent submission but I agree with you. To identify the “group” as (1) unique and (2) apply a label as the IDW is to suggest that the created entity can be examined as a unit; a classic non sequitur.
Some may have noticed that I haven’t criticised Helen directly in regard to this article (other than to imply that 10 minutes thought could have resulted in a superior article). The criticisms that apply here could be applied to many at Crikey – masquerading as experts. Unfortunately the standard of article, from any particular author, can vary significantly over the course of a week and generally is a function of the topic; science (and implications thereof) are not comprehended by our ‘guardians’ at Crikey.
What Helen could have conveyed (as an alternative to what you suggest) is that there is some evidence that Universities are becoming risk/criticism-adverse and will hang their faculty staff out to dry rather than present themselves as (1) institutions of controversy and (2) bastions for research and hence (3) ignore arguments associated with identity politics (short of an empirical relationship). This theme could have sufficed if the comparison was beyond the comprehension of the staff at Crikey.
If “universities” are becoming the new Judges at Witch Trials, as inferred by the article from The New Yorker, then it is to be expected that “intellectual dark webs” will come to exist as an alternative media (to “post-truth”). Helen could have followed up this implication (as an adjunct to the above paragraph).
I have made the point frequently that the West is on a collision course between the SJW masquerading as a result of quasi post-modernism and the Popper/empiricism brigade. The former are going to loose on account of their ignorance alone (because the Truth does win – eventually). The PROBLEM is that the majority of those gawking at the article in The New Yorker and the article in question do not realise that they are already disenfranchised.
On the wider point – as has been stated previously – Crikey has two options; (1) emulate The New Yorker (about one decent essay per issue) or (2) write for (and only for) “the informed” – which is probably not feasible.
Kyle wrote: The PROBLEM is that the majority of those gawking at the article in The New Yorker and the article in question do not realise that they are already disenfranchised.
Exactly. I’m never sure precisely what ethical obligations pertain to being a columnist/commentator as opposed to a current affairs journalist but surely, knowing your onions thoroughly before you voice a conviction ought to be among them.
Though I only agree with her around 20% of the time, I see Helen as a good egg, and love her voice in discussion. But this kind of ignorant guff should never be tolerated.
There’s a much better discussion to be had — one you characterised as Social Justice Warriors vs empiricism, and that’s also a fight in which as a committed Marxist, Ms Razer too has a dog.
(I’d be less cranky were I not so disappointed that she didn’t grasp the underlying issue, because I think she’d have minced it if she had.)
Crikey has two options; (1) emulate The New Yorker (about one decent essay per issue) or (2) write for (and only for) “the informed” – which is probably not feasible.
For Crikey itself, its frequent smug-yet-whining tone irritates me but I put up with it because it’s natural to Crikey’s particular editorial perspective. It’s only ignorant smug-yet-whining that incenses me. 🙂
I don’t personally believe there’s some dichotomy between elitism and populism in journalism. I just think journalism needs to think smart, but talk broadly. But that’s precisely the definition of what a Life of Letters ought to be. I even think it’s a definition Helen herself has committed to. [There’d be no point castigating anyone so bluntly if they hadn’t. :)]
Another terrific master blaster of an article. 2 non-competing viewpoints about emphasis, inflexion, nuance and a careful delicate manouverings of the weights to get what reading?! Blather.
There once was a time when the left meant something. Now it is about identity politics and good old fashioned wank. I love the bit about HC continuing the neo-liberal traditions of her Democrat and US government. Free trade agreements which shipped American jobs offshore. Wage restraints. No universal health insurance. The NAFTA was brought in by her hubby Bill the 2 timer which saw American manufacturing jobs shift to Mexico by the hundred thousand. Her Libya activities were a fiasco. Europe is paying the price for that as well as the people of Libya and its near neighbours. In fact it was her hubby Bill who instituted the rule for social security recipients of unemployment benefits that they were to remain on benefits for 9 month maximum. YOu had to appeal to get an increased receipt period. This is the face of American neo-liberalism. H&B Clinton are worth $500 million and they want us to worship the ground on which they walk because they vaccinate a few thousand kids in some poor country that they and their governments have helped keep poor.
Is this what passes for critical thought and ground breaking philosophical discussion in the US today? After they lost 6 million jobs and 8 million lost their homes in the GFC Mark 1.
These are just distractions. Materialism trumps (no pun intended) all matters of blame shifting side tracking and ultimately worthless ideological non-material distractions.
Put simply – Americans are stupid. By and large. They won’t change their social and economic system in the same way they won’t change their gun laws. They are basically dumb hokeys, lucky idiots who landed in a great prosperous big arse land mass with the capacity to feed millions. You wouldn’t get these conversations in Europe who don’t have the luxury of philosophical discussion about non-issues. They are too busy dealing with the mess of the world particularly the Middle East and Africa. Americans have to deal with Mexican and Central American criminal gangs on their doorstep and they think they are under attack.
Nailed it again Helen.
On the one hand your assessment of William Jefferson Clinton is accurate. The general theme of political work regarding his presidency is that he achieved more for the Republicans that the said Party could have hoped to achieved; you might have included the “gutting” of the allowances (ex theatre of war and others) for the military – but never mind.
However, your assessment of Americans is far from fair or indeed informed; however much you disagree with the social policies (or absence thereof) – etc. and – to the gnashing teeth from AR – I could’n’t attempt to explain the “general American perspective” on gun laws or welfare under 3,500 words; likely more; I’d like to see it done (effectively) for less!
Having written the above (three sentence summary) the “answer” resides in the various Amendments to the Constitution – which are taken seriously – and the desire to stand on ones’ own feet. In that contact there is a considerable amount of venture capital and philanthropy – large quantities anonymous which contrasts with nothing (keeping the scale in mind) in Oz. Tipping low-paid employees to 20-25% of the total account is deemed normal.
Other factors exist.