Intellectualizing the Mob

There was a woman on Twitter, a journalist. Her newspaper’s office was trashed by the mob.

“But we are a progressive newspaper!” she kept exclaiming pitifully.

Members of intelligentsia are terrified of the mob. So they allay their fears by intellectualizing it. Oh, they are for the same progressive values as I am! They won’t hurt me! I’m a good ally and I put up a big BLM sign in front of my house!

But the mob doesn’t care about your progressive newspaper or your BLM sign. The mob wants to trash your office and punch you in the face because it’s fun.

Before the Russian revolution, intelligentsia had egged on “the suffering masses for decades.” The suffering masses in question were former slaves, in a literal way, so nobody can claim their suffering wasn’t real. For a while, they didn’t seem interested in what the intelligentsia was peddling. But then a moment came when the masses blew up and immediately proceeded to whup the intelligentsia’s asses. Then they destroyed civilization, moved into the apartments of the murdered intelligentsia, and passionately supported Stalin.

The journalist with the trashed office soon realized that she wasn’t supposed to be complaining. She started to proclaim that it’s ok for her newspaper to get trashed “if it saves black lives.” She thinks this will protect her from further hurt by the suffering masses. History shows, however, that she will be among the first to get punished by them.

10 thoughts on “Intellectualizing the Mob”

  1. This part of historical analysis is perfectly correct. I would just add to it some examples from other countries, that did not experience violent revolutions and totalitarianism because the authorities were actually smart enough (or scared enough by what they were observing in Russia/SU) to introduce enough social-democratic policies.

    Like

    1. As we are now seeing, the mob will come out in a backwards, piss-poor absolute monarchy and it will come out in the most opulent country in history. It’s not policies that the mobs are trying to find in the stores they loot. They simply like the process.

      These riots aren’t an expression of some deeper suffering of a mysterious American soul, so to speak. 🙂 People are mobbing because they can.

      If we look for something interesting to analyze in the situation, I suggest we look at how a weakened nation-state can’t find an internal justification for applying force. The legitimacy of this form of governmentality has been undermined, exactly like Philip Bobbitt and others predicted. And here is the result.

      Once the state loses its monopoly on violence, the amount of violence in society grows exponentially.

      Like

      1. Interesting… So you are essentially arguing that people are inherently bad/sinful/uncivilized and the only thing that is keeping them in line is the state with its monopoly on violence… I find quite interesting parallels with the article El posted here some days ago, arguing that SJW-stuff is a religious phenomenon. One of the arguments presented in that article was that SJW-religion treats people as inherently sinful (so they have to constantly engage in repentance / self improvement activities), and therefore resembles Calvinism…
        Jokes (with large component of truth) aside – why don’t I have a desire to loot? (I almost got involved in some questionable thing in the early 90-ies, but it was not violent.) Is the thickness of my layer of civilization perfectly random, or does being educated and economically secure have anything to do with it?

        Like

        1. “Once the state loses its monopoly on violence, the amount of violence in society grows exponentially.”

          “So you are essentially arguing people are inherently bad/sinful/uncivilized and the only thing that is keeping them in line is the state with its monopoly on violence…”

          In Christendom of the pre-Enlightenment it was accepted since humans were sinful, the state and the international system were both stained with this sin. Authorities could be good or bad Christians and so the use of state coercion and violence against subjects was legitimate only if the sovereign followed Christian principles and norms.

          Post-Enlightenment thinking generally rejected the notion that, following God’s plan, humanity’s sinfulness meant that the state was inherently flawed as institution. Instead, it was now said that the application of reason could lead to the perfectability of society and state where there would be no further need for government coercion and violence. For example, Marx argued that the state was a direct instrument of economic class power and once the classlessness of communism had been achieved, the state would simply “wither away” as it no longer served a purpose.

          But a few post-Enlightment thinkers, like Hobbes (the state) and Morganthau (the international system), substitute a “human nature,” that is selfish and has a will to power, for Christian sin. Consequently, for them, neither the state nor the international system can be perfected. However, both can constrain humanity’s natural tendency to violence and choas, and so are preconditions for civilized life. Hobbes famously declared that human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” without the state’s monopoly on violence.

          Like

      2. Here’s a great illustration of what I’m saying:

        Who’s surprised after we saw cops kneeling yesterday, begging the mob to disperse and the mob petting them like dogs.

        Like

        1. Notice that he is saying: I WORK for BLM, MY COMPANY, and my CEO . I’m wondering who is the said CEO and how much harassing young women on the street pays these days.

          Like

  2. Well, we do not know how many scary looking dudes were standing behind the interviewer.
    Or maybe we are seeing a genuine SJW-religious person.
    Or maybe this is staged from the beginning till end by somebody trying to discredit even the peaceful protest. (This is a non-PC blog :), so I guess it is OK to admit that the interviewer did not sound black to me and his hand is not dark enough.)

    If i were approached this way, I would first question if this is some kind of a bad joke perpetrated by right-wingers trying to prove… what they have ultimately … not proven by the above video. Why would anyone otherwise approach a random white person (not a police officer or other figure of authority) with such a request on camera?
    Then I would tell them that I am willing to offer them help with problems emanating from systemic failures, but as equal to equals, and that I do not feel guilt in particular. And would take my chances. Even the tanker driver survived…

    Like

    1. Another red herring for me with respect to your video is this guy calling Black Lives Matter a “company”. Not “movement”, not even “campaign”, but “company”. To me this sounds like a slip of a tongue by somebody who believes BLM is a fully owned subsidiary of Soros Inc. 🙂 🙂 Look, even if BLM were a company, the BLM operative would not use this language, because this would be very bad PR.

      Like

  3. “a woman on Twitter, a journalist”

    Not as funny as this case, where mr nba journalist goes from “burn that shit down” when the rioters were far to “get these animals TF out of my nieghborhood” when they get too close for comfort…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.