Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Fifty shades of brown

There have been many theories about what the Arab Spring is all about. Of course the MSM say it’s about “youth committed to democracy” or some nonsense of the like. I don’t remember who was it who said it was the first of many food riots to come to the Middle East, whose non oil producers today can barely feed their huge populations.

That makes more sense, but I have another, perhaps complementary explanation. The Arab Spring, and its primary manifestation, i.e. huge demonstrations of idle youth in urban squares, is a means to get laid with white ladies. Don’t believe me?

Read this: British journalist raped at Tahrir Square. Again! I thought after Lara Logan got assaulted, and actually got it to be reported, white women would’ve got the message. It’s incredible how Lara Logan or Charlize Theron, Afrikaners who know first hand what is to be a powerless white in a non white country, would still be so deluded as to keep hanging out with their enemies. But I guess it’s never enough until you get murdered.

To the point, every time that people gang up at Tahrir Square for whatever reason, several young white women go there to report, and get raped. So why not go? Of course if you stay at the square too long the army would come cracking down, so you have to get the timing right. Every 6 months or so is enough. And the white chicks keep coming! That’s more sex than your average Arab gets normally. So no shit that the political situation is unstable. Boys just wanna have fun.


22 responses to “Fifty shades of brown

  1. Simon June 28, 2012 at 06:41

    YO, bro, still waiting for your critique on utlitarianism. Should be a ripper.

    • Alrenous June 28, 2012 at 11:41

      It took me perhaps too long to realize that utilitarianism isn’t really a moral theory, it just plays one at parties.
      In the simplest terms it is the tautology that good is good. For example, in practice it seems to have adsorbed the notion that you ought to care about other people’s good, not just your own. Is that in fact an ought, a good, or not? All utilitarianism can say about it is that good is good.

      Put another way, if I take pleasure in that ought being false, does that make it false? Or does this ought supersede the pleasure == good identification, regardless of how distasteful I might find it? Utilitarianism does not, cannot, have any principled answer.

      Put a third way, for utilitarianism to actually function philosophically, you have to already know what good is. For a car to function physically, you have to have at least some understanding of combustion and containment. You cannot build a thing, call it a car, and then declare it an investigation or theory of combustion. If the thing travels, you already knew. If it doesn’t, you’re not going to find out.

    • spandrell June 28, 2012 at 13:48

      I don’t think a priori arguments on moral theory are productive.

  2. the slitty eye June 28, 2012 at 07:48

    Introduce those tribes from the south. They got plenty of women willing to have a blast with all the horny Arab youth.

  3. RS June 28, 2012 at 15:34

    IMO nothing is more productive. OTOH I have only finished 10% of Nicomachean Ethics = 15 pages, so my revealed preference is…..

    I agree with Alrenous, these predicates are not going to function trouble-free straight from the box. Under ‘consequentialist eudaimonism’ we comprehend the love of adventures, under ‘utilitarianism’ we sort of don’t, but it’s not always super clear why it should be that way.

    To be sure, it’s not utilitarianism or Christianity, either/or. Of the two, I would take Christianity — but what I really want is Hellas or Florence or Wien.

    • spandrell June 28, 2012 at 16:16

      You wouldn’t have liked Hellas. It was a land of sophism sodomy and constant war.
      And Florence ended producing Savonarola.

      I’ve just travelled too much to believe in objective universal ethics. People make up societal rules on the spot, according to their inclination and circumstances. To my eyes, some turn out better, some turn out really fucked up. Both groups tend to think their rules are the best thing since sliced bread. Fucked up peoples tend to be particularly defensive.

      What gives? What do you want? That’s the only real question.

      • Alrenous June 28, 2012 at 21:46

        So what’s your falsification condition? What evidence would convince you to believe in objective ethics?

          • Alrenous June 29, 2012 at 19:13

            My ethics are based on logic. Finding a contradiction would immediately remove my justification for thinking I have a thing. I would try to repair it, but I may ultimately prove something else, which would change my mind for good. It would take some time – I required myself to re-derive the proof several times over several years, and I would require the same for any counter-proof.

            So, what’s yours? Are you dodging on purpose or is this just the usual watched-too-many-politicians thing?

            • spandrell June 29, 2012 at 20:12

              Your ethics aren’t based on logic. They are based in subjective value judgements. That’s how it works.

            • spandrell June 30, 2012 at 09:09

              I’m disaccustomed to scholarly language, perhaps you can elaborate at your blog.

              • Alrenous June 30, 2012 at 20:41

                It’s an option, but I ask because I’m missing important information.

                I could explain, but I predict A: you won’t agree and B: I will fail to predict how you disagree. Also C: if others disagree, it will usually be for different but also unexpected reasons. Which means the post, no matter how long it is, won’t address the actual disagreement.

                Having made my prediction, I’m content to post it for the sole reason of testing the prediction, but preferably I could get something to work with.

              • Alrenous July 6, 2012 at 15:54

                I have a draft regarding morality. Barring unforeseeable events, I’ll post it eventually, and thus test this prediction, among others.

        • RS June 29, 2012 at 00:40

          As far as I know your objective ethics are unconvincing, because you haven’t tried to smash them into external objects at high GeV energies. What if your program leads to increased existential risk for mankind, meaning extinction? Compared to other options A, B, C. Or what if I think it worsens existential risk compared to them — isn’t my opinion on that subjective? And isn’t the value I place on existential risk (relative to other outcomes) also subjective? Therefore it seems my opinion of your ethics is doomed to subjectivity — they are subjective for me. Instead of existential risk, my metric could be the flourishing of high culture, the biological (re|de)generation of man (or the population of a given civilization), or other things — but the result is the same, subjectivity.

  4. asdf June 29, 2012 at 14:28

    Ethics may be subjective, but the embracing of subjectivity seems to really fuck up society. Better to have a two tiered system were a few smart people make up a morality and tell everyone else its the objective truth, which they follow through propaganda + reinforcement mechanisms. Seems to give society and individuals a purpose and guidelines that make them happy. Of course that requires an elite and no democracy, which I don’t know if that’s sustainable in the modern world.

    Also the effectiveness of such an arrangement will depend on the quality of the elite, so some will turn out great (Singapore) and some terrible (NK). Democracy is the mediocre muddle through.

    • spandrell June 29, 2012 at 15:53

      Yes that is how it used to work everywhere until recently. But the few patricians who control the plebs have to be cohesive for its morality to really take force. And there is always a Marius for every Sulla, a Wang Anshi for every Su Dongpo, a Locke for every Filmer.

      So it breaks down. And morality changes.

  5. asdf June 29, 2012 at 14:43

    BTW, south park already covered this. Mr. Garrison explained that terrorism happens because horny dudes who can jerk off or get drunk have lots of sand up their assholes.

  6. RS June 29, 2012 at 20:49

    > You wouldn’t have liked Hellas. It was a land of sophism sodomy and constant war.

    But there’s no respite from sodomy anywhere in ancient Europe. I think it was Caesar who said Celtic women were lovely, but Celts preferred sleeping with men. OTOH I guess there’s no mention of gaiety in De Germania.

    For Stirner the sophists are a sort of heros, being amoral egoists, or legislators of their own moralities… confrontors of their own natures and own desires. Socrates in contrast he considers proto-Christian, idealist, and proto-leftist — the prototype of a man who elaborates an imaginary world, because he does not wish to struggle with the authentic world and authentic self. Nietzsche largely repeated this view of Socrates (probably taking it straight from Stirner), without particularly lauding the sophists, that I know of. Nazism would seem to have taken up its anti-christianity primarily from these two philosophers (who were stupendously famous and all-pervading in the interwar ferment), though Hitler himself may not have read them (Mussolini did). However, this whole lineage of views tying leftism to Christianity, is rather different from Jim’s and Mencius’ lineage (which is of course more focused on Protestantism than on Christianity as a whole).

    Of course, Stirner is rather confusing when he makes the ancients sound like utilitarians — where in reality, (noble) ancients were devoted to heroic or adventurous ethical ideals.

    • spandrell June 29, 2012 at 22:55

      Hellas was the best of the time, but it still sucks for our tastes.
      Sophists were professional liars, their work not unlike politicians or lawyers today. If you like made up arguments to justify whatever shit you come up with, you don’t need to go 2500 years back; read the NYT.

      Leftism is bad, it derives logically from many sources, but let’s be careful with the rewind button. It’s one thing to see the source in the Enlightment, another to see it in Christianity, but Socrates? If we are going to blame all the foundations of Western Civilisations as the origin of leftism, well what can I say. There are many places out there who don’t follow Socrates, Plato, Saint Augustin or Rousseau. India, China, Islam. They aren’t beacons of liberty either. Never were.

      Paganism is fun, but Roman republican politics had much of the same problems as we have. It’s so similar it’s not even funny. Leftism is human nature.

Please comment

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

You are commenting using your 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