Thaddeus Russell

[wufwugy]

I wanted to post his stuff earlier, but it was all in long podcast format, so I didn't bother. Then Aubrey sent me this article, which I never read before because I heard the stories in the podcasts. It's a succinct and enticing introduction to what Thad is all about, so it fits well for anybody who doesn't want to devote hours to a podcast. Read the article, and if you're interested in more, here are his best podcasts and interviews. One with Joe Rogan, one with Cenk Uygur, and two with Chris Ryan. He's currently my favorite intellectual and I 10000% guarantee he'll change your view of history and culture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thadde..._b_767172.html



http://chrisryanphd.com/tangentially...addeus-russell

http://chrisryanphd.com/tangentially...ussell-returns

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

If you're uninterested, just watch the interview with Cenk from 48:00 to 54:00ish. In that, he makes the case that MLK was an opponent of black culture and that violence is largely responsible for gaining rights for blacks. That'll be sure to rustle your jimmies, given that those facts have been washed out of all discourse, even academic discourse

[spoonitnow]

Black violence is making a lot of progress in Detroit. Goddamn, I'm surprised they haven't taken over the world and invented a new type of mathematics yet with all of the new rights that's been getting them.

[wufwugy]

Says the guy who didn't bother to do anything other than notice that I put "violence" and "blacks" in the same sentence

[spoonitnow]

Says the guy who didn't bother to do anything other than notice that I put "violence" and "blacks" in the same sentence

No wait, it was the pirates and whores.

[a500lbgorilla]

Absolutely fascinating.

[aubreymcfate]

Yeah, this guy is awesome. This whole thing is worth watching but I've timestamped it to a quick part I particularly love:

http://youtu.be/jU31R8FY2As?t=42m26s

[oskar]

He's ok I guess.

[Renton]

He seems to be a good mouthpiece for libertarianism. He's good at arguing for liberty without seeming radical or dickish.

[wufwugy]

^^Yes. He's done a bunch of stuff on the schoolsucks podcast that is much more specific about libertarianism. From what I can tell, he's good at pointing out a lot of the issues with libertarian sacred cows. One example is the non-aggression principle. That's pretty standard for mainstream libertarianism, but I think is logically inconsistent and plays into losing policy.

[wufwugy]

Also he would describe himself more as a libertine and an anti-statist than a libertarian. Libertarianism is still deeply rooted in anti-libertine ethics like the puritan work and nuclear family. Thad is largely about subverting normative morals, behaviors and institutions

[a500lbgorilla]

Stop with the worthless labels and what he's 'about'. Guy is just bringing to the forefront shit worth paying attention to.

Joe Rogan podcast also excellent + Dan Carlin mention.

[wufwugy]

The Chris Ryan podcasts may be the best since he probably has the most to offer an in-depth intellectual discussion when compared to Rogan or Cenk. I do wish that Thad had gone further when they discussed corporations and the state, though. Ryan has a fundamental belief that corporate motivation is evil, which I disagree with

[a500lbgorilla]

He bullseyes the point that the state is a monopoly on violence, coupled with the need for the state to force the people to hold themselves to the higher standard demanded of leadership is a really powerful lense for explaining a lot. And that's drawn against people flippantly ignoring this demand and instead growing basic human privilege through selfish actions - with all the examples he gives, it really is something worth investigating.

The reason you shouldn't care about him beyond the points he can bring to you is that even he struggles with something that he himself basically answers. Why is America constantly at war, this time with ISIL? Because America doesn't have a world's monopoly on violence, yet, and it certainly doesn't want more players in the game. And Joe Rogan has a knee-jerk sense to question some of his blanket statements, and he immediately backs down, showing that he's used to people eating from his trough.

edit: And as I remember, when talking about the monopoly of violence of the State he says something like, -liberals want to give them more power, whereas I think they should have less-. But the State already has all of the power, you can either find a way to make it better at using the power, or give it fewer ways to act. Throw bankers in jail for following the incentives of their industry, threaten the very industry itself with your violent authority, or just leave them to their own devices because you're too powerful to be deciding such things.

It's great.

[Renton]

I'm not a fan of his views on labor. The whole idea that people in the industrial era lived out miserable existences in factory work 12 hours a day is completely bunk. Yes they worked a lot of hours and yes the conditions weren't great by modern standards but they were fantastic compared with the alternatives of the day. That there was mass migration to industrial centers and an unprecedented explosion of population growth during this time would seem to provide unequivocal proof of this.

And he carries the same misunderstanding of labor forward to the modern day by deriding the existence of the cubical worker and comparing it with a more favorable alternative of the French work culture. My guess is that the French work only 30 hours a week not because of a lack of worth ethic, but because the state has practically bankrupted itself subsidizing labor so severely. And there are probably harsh penalties for employers who "over-work" their staffs. I'm no expert on French domestic policy so I won't state anything for a certainty. I do know that employers in France are required to give massive amounts of paid leave to their workers, though.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not a fan of his views on labor. The whole idea that people in the industrial era lived out miserable existences in factory work 12 hours a day is completely bunk. Yes they worked a lot of hours and yes the conditions weren't great by modern standards but they were fantastic compared with the alternatives of the day. That there was mass migration to industrial centers and an unprecedented explosion of population growth during this time would seem to provide unequivocal proof of this.

And he carries the same misunderstanding of labor forward to the modern day by deriding the existence of the cubical worker and comparing it with a more favorable alternative of the French work culture. My guess is that the French work only 30 hours a week not because of a lack of worth ethic, but because the state has practically bankrupted itself subsidizing labor so severely. And there are probably harsh penalties for employers who "over-work" their staffs. I'm no expert on French domestic policy so I won't state anything for a certainty. I do know that employers in France are required to give massive amounts of paid leave to their workers, though.

This sounds like another reason why you should only pay attention to where he starts and where he goes and how he does it, because this sounds inconsistent with what I heard. That industrial life was just a change from raising chickens to working a repetitious task that, coupled with alcohol, lead to a difficult time not letting the drunks sleep it off every seven days on St. Monday.

[wufwugy]

I'm not a fan of his views on labor. The whole idea that people in the industrial era lived out miserable existences in factory work 12 hours a day is completely bunk. Yes they worked a lot of hours and yes the conditions weren't great by modern standards but they were fantastic compared with the alternatives of the day. That there was mass migration to industrial centers and an unprecedented explosion of population growth during this time would seem to provide unequivocal proof of this.

And he carries the same misunderstanding of labor forward to the modern day by deriding the existence of the cubical worker and comparing it with a more favorable alternative of the French work culture. My guess is that the French work only 30 hours a week not because of a lack of worth ethic, but because the state has practically bankrupted itself subsidizing labor so severely. And there are probably harsh penalties for employers who "over-work" their staffs. I'm no expert on French domestic policy so I won't state anything for a certainty. I do know that employers in France are required to give massive amounts of paid leave to their workers, though.

Agree with second paragraph but not necessarily the first. He wasn't saying the conditions were terrible but that the bosses wanted them to be more work-heavy than they were and the employees were subverting that.

As for the second paragraph, I suspect the lack of the puritan work ethic is partly what promotes those labor-restrictive policies gaining support

[wufwugy]

The state being the ultimate arbiter doesn't necessarily mean it has all the power. It still rules by legitimacy. If it goes too far, that legitimacy is often stripped.

I think the way to subvert the state is to reduce its capacity to regulate. One of the last things we want is a government that works well because then it works well at maintaining the status quo. I would argue that the handful of small, homogenous states that are said to have well-functioning governments and societies are heavily subsidized by the innovations and freedoms created by markets outside of those states

[a500lbgorilla]

The state being the ultimate arbiter doesn't necessarily mean it has all the power. It still rules by legitimacy. If it goes too far, that legitimacy is often stripped.

I think the way to subvert the state is to reduce its capacity to regulate. One of the last things we want is a government that works well because then it works well at maintaining the status quo. I would argue that the handful of small, homogenous states that are said to have well-functioning governments and societies are heavily subsidized by the innovations and freedoms created by markets outside of those states

The state holding a monopoly on violence does mean it has all of the power. Against the authority to command you at gun-point, what other power is there?

[wufwugy]

I think Thad sometimes assumes his audience has a greater intuitive understanding of his arguments than we do. In the Rogan podcast, he doesn't make the best case for anti-intervention of foreign affairs, but I don't think that's because he can't

[wufwugy]

The state holding a monopoly on violence does mean it has all of the power. Against the authority to command you at gun-point, what other power is there?

Well now you sound like me

I'm trying to paint a perspective that, while the monopoly on violence technically has total power, it realistically doesn't behave like it does. It certainly tries to behave like it does, but is subverted at most angles

[a500lbgorilla]

Well now you sound like me

I'm trying to paint a perspective that, while the monopoly on violence technically has total power, it realistically doesn't behave like it does. It certainly tries to behave like it does, but is subverted at most angles

I think I'd flip the last two bits. That it behaves in many ways like it doesn't, to promote the idea that it is a moral authority that is vulnerable if it acts out of hand.

[a500lbgorilla]

I think Thad sometimes assumes his audience has a greater intuitive understanding of his arguments than we do. In the Rogan podcast, he doesn't make the best case for anti-intervention of foreign affairs, but I don't think that's because he can't

I think Thad is like anyone else that trying to play from memory. Some times you're on and some times you're not. This is why you should only care about what they say and not who they are. An off day doesn't ruin a speaker, nor does an on day exalt one.

[wufwugy]

I think I'd flip the last two bits. That it behaves in many ways like it doesn't, to promote the idea that it is a moral authority that is vulnerable if it acts out of hand.

Naw that's true. I agree with that

[bigred]

I read the first post and linked article. This interests me.

[wufwugy]

Some interesting stuff in here. Not the greatest quality and a slow start though.




Most striking I think is that Thad alludes to the possibility that racism has nothing to do with race but with culture. The example used is that the history of European immigrants is that they shared the same culture and sensibilities with blacks until they started considering themselves white. I think this suggests that what we call racism is more appropriately viewed as differences in the acceptance of the mainstream ethic. This could explain why there are so many people who aren't "racist" against blacks but are "racist" against "hood".

If this is true, the social justice approach only perpetuates the race problem by the framing. They say "he called him a thug therefore he's talking about black people" when the truth is that people who don't like thugs are talking about a character and don't like that character regardless of race.

[wufwugy]

Highly recommended. Starts shortly after 10:30. Thad explains race relations that are entirely left out of history textbooks. Gives insight into the mainstream American culture being about Scandinavian protestant whiteness and work ethic, contrasted to a rejection of that mainstream ethic by blacks, Irish, Italians, and Jews and how the latter three ended up embracing the mainstream ethic.

http://schoolsucksproject.com/podcas...ddeus-russell/

[a500lbgorilla]

Why skip? It's good to be reminded that my Irish heritage makes me quarter white chimpanzee. And my British heritage makes me another quarter proper chimpanzee. Wonder what the Scottish and Polish makes me.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh I got to the part you wanted skipped.

[a500lbgorilla]

"Let's talk about war..." "whites fought in 'em all."

I can't find it. But there was a really interesting bit on NPR while I was driving home yesterday. Some white couple moved from New Orleans whitesburg to New Orleans 9th district for economic reasons and the sense of community of the 9th district won them over immediately. But the poor girl from this couple couldn't win her way into the community no matter the efforts she went to because she was an outsider full-stop. And she went to some extraordinary efforts.

She tried to be a paragon of the community, even being applauded in local government meetings as a solid representative of the community, but still, she hadn't really been accepted. There was a story about how all her neighbors told her that the man who died in her place prior to her moving in, died peacefully in his sleep as the rising waters took him under. The truth of the matter was, she later discovered, that he was screaming for help before he passed.

She even admits that she felt entitled to the acceptance of such a wonderful community recalling an episode where her newborn with colic was awoken by some kids lighting firecrackers. When she confronted the kids, their mother pulled her up and hit her with the 'ole "you johnny-come-latelys moving in here and making your demands are ruining this place." She even said she tried to make it about her, but the other woman wasn't hearing it because to her, it was about the changes in the neighborhood.

Just how this bit rolled into how Irish whites were outsiders but eventually American insiders made me think of how odd it is to figure out whose 'in' and 'out'.

"Being in a machine inside a greater machine did great violence to people's lives."

That doesn't sound libertarian at all. The marketplace does only good. For these willing participants sacrificing whatever they happen to be sacrificing in exchange to cash money, it could only happen that that exchange is good, for how else would it happen?

Oh, I forgot, gov't regulation.

Yeah, this goes way over my head. There still seems to be a big jump with Irish are outsiders to Irish are fully assimilated.



Good times.

[wufwugy]

"Being in a machine inside a greater machine did great violence to people's lives."

That doesn't sound libertarian at all. The marketplace does only good. For these willing participants sacrificing whatever they happen to be sacrificing in exchange to cash money, it could only happen that that exchange is good, for how else would it happen?

Oh, I forgot, gov't regulation.

Thad is more of a libertine than a libertarian. I'm not saying that his statement doesn't jive with libertarianism (I think it does), but just pointing out that he mostly argues from the perspective of the desire to subvert the mainstream ethic that requires sacrifice of the body and pleasure.

[wufwugy]

The statement jives with libertarianism because at libertarianism's core is the rejection of the state mandate, which is in effect acceptance of personal choice. That includes the choice to work in poor conditions as well as reject those poor conditions and endeavor for better conditions. Libertarianism isn't the protestant work ethic, it doesn't believe the market is holy.

[wufwugy]

So, with the podcast in mind, what is the prescription for the clash between black cultures and the mainstream culture?

The three other ethnicities assimilated into mainstream culture because by great majority they accepted it and rejected the overt elements of their subcultures. Blacks have not done so by majority. This isn't a bad thing, I think it's a good thing, because I think mainstream appropriation of elements of subcultures is the source of liberation. So, I think whiteness owes a great debt to blackness for many of the luxuries and freedoms we have.

But the state of things can't be that the only way to engage newfound liberty is for the maintenance of subcultures rejected by the mainstream, can it? How upsetting and futile that would be. It would mean things like suppression are good. I don't want to believe that.

I don't think I have an answer. I want my starting point to be welfare. I think it somehow may be responsible for the extreme clashing of cultures. It could be that welfare turns the melting pot into the dueling grounds. As Thad pointed out, the success of the subversive elements of black cultures comes from their appeal to mainstream white culture. Doesn't this then suggest that countercultures can live in harmony, yet they don't because welfare is the culprit viewed as responsible for enabling an unproductive decadence other than a productive and appealing decadence?