Advertisements
Home

The Social Justice Warriors in the U.S. Will Exploit Anything—Even The Loss of Human Life—For Their Own Gain In the Culture Wars: In Memory of Anthony Bourdain

Leave a comment

I have often written about the ongoing culture war in both the United States and Turkey, and today I continue in this vein.

Sadly, the great travel journalist and chef Anthony Bourdain passed away on 8 June 2018 from an apparent suicide in France. As an intrepid traveler who did not shy away from visiting the most obscure of places, I always respected Mr. Bourdain for what he stood for in terms of travel and its importance in terms of truly bringing cultures together. Yet, the devaluation of human life in the modern age continues as even this tragic death is already being exploited by social justice warriors (SJW) in the main(lame)stream media.

Instead of focusing on how Mr. Bourdain’s death is a tragic reflection on our own twisted society, the culture industry chose to exploit this tragedy for its own gain. Suicide rates in the U.S. have risen 30 percent since 1999—the years in which the “New World Order” has truly taken hold—despite the fact that we, ostensibly, live in a “prosperous” and “peaceful time”. Of those suicides, it was found that in a shocking 42% of cases the main factor was “relationship problems”. If we are “modern” and indeed “progressing”—as the progressives would have it—then why are we more alone than ever, so alone that suicide rates are skyrocketing? French Sociologist Emile Durkheim would have certainly asked this question, and I will attempt to answer it.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-09 at 12.28.02 PM.png

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-09 at 12.28.37 PM.png

Tragic Statistics. Images Courtesy Of: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/suicide-rates-are-30-percent-1999-cdc-says-n880926

 

Perhaps it is because people have forgotten the balance that is crucial for human life to not only thrive, but even merely to survive. In his book Sport Matters, Sociologist Eric Dunning points this out:

Centrally involved in the maturation and growing autonomy of a person is a process of individualization during the course of which he/she gradually learns to think of himself/herself as an ‘I’, to acquire an identity and sense of self [. . .] one of the preconditions for the occurrence of individualization in what is considered in modern societies to be a ‘healthy’ way is the formation of bonds with others that are neither too distant nor too close and in which a balance is struck between autonomy and dependence. It is a question of forming a socially appropriate ‘we—I balance’ (Elias, 1991a) in which a person comes to be considered by others as neither too self-absorbed nor too dependent on the groups to which he/she belongs (Dunning 1999: 4).

It seems that many in modern society have lost this balance. People are all too ready to hide behind their “intersectional” identity and play the game of identity politics, rather than recognize that—as individuals—they are also part of a larger collective. This has confused some people to the point that they even—legitimately—believe that eating food out of bowls is a “hot new trend”. I suppose many people have just never visited archeology museums—and saw the ancient bowls on display—and thus believe that this can be something new, but I digress.

The point is to show that the void created by a rootless and cultureless “global” society has left people alienated and clinging to any identity that will take them: white, black, man, woman, transgender, gay straight, bowl food eater, or even craft beer lover. One way to alleviate this could, of course, be an embrace of elective identities which are not exclusive. National identity is one; one can choose to be a citizen of their country or not but one cannot choose to have a certain skin color, for instance. The former is elective, the latter is not. Yet when Mr. Trump chose to hold a “celebration of America” day after the NFL Champion Philadelphia Eagles chose to reject the U.S. President’s invitation to the White House, the main(lame) stream media was appalled. Why being an American—and being proud of it—is an issue I will never know, but it is an important question to ask as the world collapses into a million pieces of small—and often insignificant—intersectional identities.

We must recognize that it is the culture industry which encourages this fracturing of society; in fact it is encouraged at every single turn. Unfortunately, Mr. Bourdain’s death is a perfect example of this despicable and tasteless exploitation. Malaika Jabali, writing for Glamour Magazine, provides the latest example of poor quality journalism in her 8 June 2018 piece “Why Anthony Bourdain’s Life Is a Lesson for White Men of Privilege on How to Be an Ally”. In the article, Jabali throws out SJW keywords like a dealer throws cards down in Vegas: Without thinking about the negative consequences while knowing full well that no one will object.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-09 at 12.29.48 PM.png

Hey Glamour, Here Is an Idea: Stick to Fashion And Stay Away From Pop Culture and Politics. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.glamour.com

 

Jabali tells us that Bourdain was an “ally”, that he “was one who fundamentally believed in, and fought for, people at the margins even when hashtags weren’t trending”. To support her claims, she presents a few of Mr. Bourdain’s comments (posthumously). She writes:

 

On Latino immigration in America, Bourdain once stated: “The bald fact is that the entire restaurant industry in America would close down overnight, would never recover, if current immigration laws were enforced quickly and thoroughly across the board. Everyone in the industry knows this. It is undeniable. Illegal labor is the backbone of the service and hospitality industry—Mexican, Salvadoran and Ecuadoran in particular…. Let’s at least try to be honest when discussing this issue.”

This was in 2007, before Trump’s walls or the fervent pitch of nationalist rhetoric reached its ascendance.

 

Jabali also offers Mr. Bourdain’s views on the Opioid crisis:

Now that the white captain of the football team and his cheerleader girlfriend in small-town America are hooked on dope, maybe we’ll now stop demonizing heroin as a criminal problem and start dealing with it as the medical and public-health problem that it is, and should be.

 

What is very interesting here is that neither of the quotes attributed to Mr. Bourdain actually espouse the SJW mentality. Regarding illegal immigration, Mr. Bourdain was merely pointing out what all sensible non SJWs might say: that illegal immigration should be ended because it is glorified slave labor (a topic I have touched on). Regarding the opioid crisis, Mr. Bourdain is just pointing out something fairly obvious: small town America is being destroyed by drugs which feed on an unemployed population which has been gutted by globalism (another topic I have written about before).

The reason I point this out is not to interpret the words of Mr. Bourdain after he has departed; to do that would be to stoop to the level of Glamour and Ms. Jabali. Rather, I point this out because Ms. Jabali’s article is an ideological con-job; an example of the main(lame)stream media’s attempts to shape public opinion by using celebrities (even after they are dead) to further their own agenda. In the modern world—where respect and morals matter little—this should not be too surprising. But we owe it to ourselves to see through the chicanery and punish the charlatans in the media for being unable to appreciate people—like Mr. Bourdain—for who they are. Mr. Bourdain was an intrepid traveler who taught the world—far better than I can on this small blog—that it is only by travel that we can truly understand all the different cultures and people of the world. Glamour and Ms. Jabali should be ashamed of themselves; may Mr. Bourdain rest in peace.

 

In Memoriam Anthony Bourdain 1956-2018

 

anthony-bourdain-twitter_625x300_1528458776361.jpg

A Travel Legend. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/anthony-bourdain-suicide-cnn-host-and-celebrity-chef-anthony-bourdain-kills-himself-1864565

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Emile Durkheim, Donald Trump and Manchester United: A Short Essay on The Media and Corporate Greed

2 Comments

 

00EE3E0F00000190-2923849-image-m-40_1422040233509

Time to “Kick” Corporate Greed Out of Industrial Football? Image Courtesy Of: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2924895/Eric-Cantona-wish-d-hit-harder-Manchester-United-legend-shows-no-remorse-Crystal-Palace-kung-fu-kick.html

 

Business Insider recently published a piece with the headline “Manchester United is blaming Donald Trump for the club’s half-year loss of £29 million — here’s why”. Considering that the piece garnered almost 5,000 hits in just under 24 hours I might need to consider using sensationalist headlines myself, but I digress. According to the article, Manchester United FC had to write off £48.8 million ($67.9 million) and “because of US tax cuts imposed by Trump, United posted a half-year loss of £29 million up to December 31, 2017”.

Given that the club’s chief financial officer noted that “It should be beneficial to the club in the long-term”—which should not be surprising, seeing as how Mr. Trump’s tax cut was designed to favor corporate entities like Manchester United—the sensationalist headline was surprising. Indeed, it is so surprising that it is worth delving into. While the headline follows the tendency towards one-dimensional thought in the media—anything negative about U.S. President Donald Trump sells—it also does nothing to further the traditional “watchdog” role of the media. In the past, the media acted as a counterweight to the state/government/dominant narratives; now it seems as if the media merely trumpets out the same old familiar lines day in and day out. It is one-dimensional enough to turn one off from even reading the news—which would be a feasible course of action were it not so dangerous!

What is most disturbing about this headline, however, is that Business Insider (and other outlets who carried the story with nearly identical headlines such as The Daily Mail, Bleacher Report, and The Telegraph) conspicuously ignored the much bigger—and more concerning—picture for football fans and normal citizens alike.

Who, honestly, really cares how much Manchester United loses? Does a £29 million loss really mean a lot to Manchester United, the most valuable team in Europe according to UEFA, with a value of 689 million Euro and a yearly growth of 169 million Euro (32%)? The question journalists should be asking is just why we care that a football team—that is supposed to be for the people (just like our countries used to be)—needs to make such obscene amounts of money. It is this kind of corporate greed which has led the world towards a tipping point; capitalism cannot—and will not—be able to sustain continued growth to infinity. Just like the club revenues of football teams in Europe that have tripled this century according to UEFA, it is inevitable that the upwards trend will end. The question, of course, is when. And it is a question which journalists are clearly not willing to touch.

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 3.22.55 AM.png

Where Does it End? Image Courtesy Of: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/53/00/22/2530022_DOWNLOAD.pdf

 

This kind of greed has had negative effects on working classes and middle classes all over the world, and that is why it is something—one would think—that journalists would make note of. In national terms, this has led to a “bloated” and “unaccountable government” in the United States; as the (conservative!) Washington Times notes

bureaucrats in the information business flout the law, as though they’re above it. While those in charge of our money use it like a never-ending water stream, that is unending and belongs to them [. . .] When the government views the citizen as the servant, we get weaponized law enforcement agencies to be used against us, and law-breaking agency bureaucrats and politicians who see our democracy as an inconvenience to be subverted.

This is why the issue of corporate greed goes far beyond the faux “left” and “right” dichotomy that, clearly, journalists love to underline in order to (you guessed it) sell more news!

Indeed, the United States—like much of the world—is facing absurd amounts of equality even though there is more than enough money to go around. According to the United Nations, the poverty and inequality in the U.S. is “shockingly at odds with [the United States’] immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights”. Similarly, the Economic Policy Institute found in 2017 that “in 2016 CEOs in America’s largest firms made an average of $15.6 million in compensation, or 271 times the annual average pay of the typical worker”. As the report shows, this is “light years beyond the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965 and the 59-to-1 ratio in 1989”. Indeed, “the average CEO in a large firm now earns 5.33 times the annual earnings of the average very-high-wage earner (earner in the top 0.1 percent)”. Clearly, the jump in discrepancy between CEO’s and average workers since 1989 (not coincidentally, the end of the Cold War) is not sustainable. What is more alarming, is that this absurd gap is not just confined to the United States; as Bloomberg notes (https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/executive-pay many European countries also have large discrepancies between CEO and average worker, even if they are not as astronomical as in the U.S. (Indeed, in Manchester United’s home country, the UK, the ratio is 201 to 1).

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 4.56.20 AM.png

Its Not Just an American Problem. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.epi.org/files/pdf/130354.pdf

 

The scariest part of these figures is that while CEO pay has increased from 843,000 USD in 1965 to a projected 15,636,000 USD in 2016, the annual average wage for private-sector production/nonsupervisory workers increased from 40,000 USD in 1965 to a projected 53,300 USD in 2016. That is an astounding 936.7% increase in CEO pay between 1978-2016 and a mere 11.2% increase in average worker pay during the same time period. Needless to say, the issue is not that there is not enough money to go around; the issue is corporate greed. And it should be clear that this system is not sustainable, it will—quite literally—lead to the end of world civilization as we know it. And the solution will certainly not be found if the media continually ignores inequity in the favor of furthering their own bizarre sensationalist agenda based on the imagined “left” and “right” divide.

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-10 at 4.59.48 AM.png

It Is A Sad Sight Indeed. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.epi.org/files/pdf/130354.pdf

 

Here, French sociologist Emile Durkheim is quite relevant. I quote from George Ritzer’s The Development of Sociological Thought (8th ed.), the text I use in my class:

In Durkheim’s view, people were in danger of a “pathological” loosening of moral bonds. These moral bonds were important to Durkheim, for without them the individual would be enslaved by ever-expanding and insatiable passions. People would be impelled by their passions into a mad search for gratification, but each new gratification would lead only to more and more needs. According to Durkheim, the one thing that every human will always want is ‘more’. And, of course, that is the one thing we ultimately cannot have. If society does not limit us, we will become slaves to the pursuit of more (Ritzer 2008: 81 [Emphasis mine]).

We would all do well to keep Durkheim in mind given the massive amounts of inequality we see in the world. It is our responsibility—as citizens—to keep our journalists aware that they exist to serve the people, and not their corporate sponsors. Their job is to print news that keeps business and government accountable, not sensationalism that panders to the zeitgeist of the day.