• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Camille Paglia: ‘Hillary Wants Trump to Win Again’

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,723
Likes
6,096
Location
south east
#1
The author and academic discusses 2020, Trump and Jordan Peterson
Camille Paglia

Camille Paglia. Picture: Michael Lionstar
Camille Paglia
December 4, 2018

Camille Paglia is one of the most interesting and explosive thinkers of our time. She transgresses academic boundaries and blows up media forms. She’s brilliant on politics, art, literature, philosophy, and the culture wars. She’s also very keen on the email Q and A format for interviews. So, after reading her new collection of essays, Provocations, Spectator USA sent her some questions.

You’ve been a sharp political prognosticator over the years. So can I start by asking for a prediction. What will happen in 2020 in America? Will Hillary Clinton run again?
If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

To win in the nation’s broad midsection, the Democratic nominee will need to project steadiness, substance, and warmth. I’ve been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Has Trump governed erratically?
Yes, that’s a fair description. It’s partly because as a non-politician he arrived in Washington without the battalion of allies, advisors, and party flacks that a senator or governor would normally accumulate on the long road to the White House. Trump’s administration is basically a one-man operation, with him relying on gut instinct and sometimes madcap improvisation. There’s often a gonzo humor to it — not that the US president should be slinging barbs at bottom-feeding celebrities or jackass journalists, much as they may deserve it. It’s like a picaresque novel starring a jaunty rogue who takes to Twitter like Tristram Shandy’s asterisk-strewn diary. Trump’s unpredictability might be giving the nation jitters, but it may have put North Korea, at least, on the back foot.

Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media’s nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan.
_____
More like this: Follow Spectator USA on Facebook and Twitter
_____
Does the ‘deep state’ exist? If so, what is it?
The deep state is no myth but a sodden, intertwined mass of bloated, self-replicating bureaucracy that constitutes the real power in Washington and that stubbornly outlasts every administration. As government programs have incrementally multiplied, so has their regulatory apparatus, with its intrusive byzantine minutiae. Recently tagged as a source of anti-Trump conspiracy among embedded Democrats, the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans and apolitical functionaries of Bartleby the Scrivener blandness. Its spreading sclerotic mass is wasteful, redundant, and ultimately tyrannical.

I have been trying for decades to get my fellow Democrats to realize how unchecked bureaucracy, in government or academe, is inherently authoritarian and illiberal. A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats — a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life.

In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise.

What is true multiculturalism?
As I repeatedly argue in Provocations, comparative religion is the true multiculturalism and should be installed as the core curriculum in every undergraduate program. From my perspective as an atheist as well as a career college teacher, secular humanism has been a disastrous failure. Too many young people raised in affluent liberal homes are arriving at elite colleges and universities with skittish, unformed personalities and shockingly narrow views of human existence, confined to inflammatory and divisive identity politics.


The cover of Provocations, Camille Paglia’s new collection of essays

Interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was everywhere in the 1960s counterculture, but it gradually dissipated partly because those most drawn to ‘cosmic consciousness’ either disabled themselves by excess drug use or shunned the academic ladder of graduate school. I contend that every educated person should be conversant with the sacred texts, rituals, and symbol systems of the great world religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam — and that true global understanding is impossible without such knowledge.

Not least, the juxtaposition of historically evolving spiritual codes tutors the young in ethical reasoning and the creation of meaning. Right now, the campus religion remains nihilist, meaning-destroying post-structuralism, whose pilfering god, the one-note Foucault, had near-zero scholarly knowledge of anything before or beyond the European Enlightenment. (His sparse writing on classical antiquity is risible.) Out with the false idols and in with the true!

There’s a lot of buzz about the ‘intellectual dark web’. One of its leading figures is Jordan Peterson, who is in some ways like you — he provokes, he works in an array of disciplines, he encourages individual responsibility. I saw your podcast with him. What did you make of him? Why is he so popular?

There are astounding parallels between Jordan Peterson’s work and mine. In its anti-ideological, trans-historical view of sex and nature, my first book, Sexual Personae (1990), can be viewed as a companion to Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999). Peterson and I took different routes up the mountain — he via clinical psychology and I via literature and art — but we arrived at exactly the same place. Amazingly, over our decades of copious research, we were drawn to the same book by the same thinker — The Origins and History of Consciousness (1949), by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann. (My 2005 lecture on Neumann at New York University is reprinted in Provocations.) Peterson’s immense international popularity demonstrates the hunger for meaning among young people today. Defrauded of a genuine humanistic education, they are recognizing the spiritual impoverishment of their crudely politicized culture, choked with jargon, propaganda, and lies.

I met Peterson and his wife Tammy a year ago when they flew to Philadelphia with a Toronto camera crew for our private dialogue at the University of the Arts. (The YouTube video has had to date over a million and a half views.) Peterson was incontrovertibly one of the most brilliant minds I have ever encountered, starting with the British philosopher Stuart Hampshire, whom I heard speak impromptu for a dazzling hour after a lecture in college. In turning psychosocial discourse back toward the syncretistic, multicultural Jung, Peterson is recovering and restoring a peak period in North American thought, when Canada was renowned for pioneering, speculative thinkers like the media analyst Marshall McLuhan and the myth critic Northrop Frye. I have yet to see a single profile of Peterson, even from sympathetic journalists, that accurately portrays the vast scope, tenor, and importance of his work.

Is humanity losing its sense of humor?
As a bumptious adolescent in upstate New York, I stumbled on a British collection of Oscar Wilde’s epigrams in a secondhand bookstore. It was an electrifying revelation, a text that I studied like the bible. What bold, scathing wit, cutting through the sentimental fog of those still rigidly conformist early 1960s, when good girls were expected to simper and defer.

But I never fully understood Wilde’s caustic satire of Victorian philanthropists and humanitarians until the present sludgy tide of political correctness began flooding government, education, and media over the past two decades. Wilde saw the insufferable arrogance and preening sanctimony in his era’s self-appointed guardians of morality.

We’re back to the hypocrisy sweepstakes, where gestures of virtue are as formalized as kabuki. Humor has been assassinated. An off word at work or school will get you booted to the gallows. This is the graveyard of liberalism, whose once noble ideals have turned spectral and vampiric.

https://spectator.us/camille-paglia-hillary-trump/
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
13,813
Likes
23,357
Location
ORYGUN
#2
Has Trump governed erratically?
Yes, that’s a fair description. It’s partly because as a non-politician he arrived in Washington without the battalion of allies, advisors, and party flacks that a senator or governor would normally accumulate on the long road to the White House. Trump’s administration is basically a one-man operation, with him relying on gut instinct and sometimes madcap improvisation. There’s often a gonzo humor to it — not that the US president should be slinging barbs at bottom-feeding celebrities or jackass journalists, much as they may deserve it. It’s like a picaresque novel starring a jaunty rogue who takes to Twitter like Tristram Shandy’s asterisk-strewn diary. Trump’s unpredictability might be giving the nation jitters, but it may have put North Korea, at least, on the back foot.
Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media’s nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan.
I thought she, as a leftist, gave a rather decent analysis.
Actually the entire article is well done.
Why is she on the left ?
 

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
27,536
Likes
45,602
#3
Yep I pretty much agreed with her for the most part. Maybe she is one of them actual democrats that were thought to be extinct for the last 20 or so years?


.
 

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,723
Likes
6,096
Location
south east
#4
I thought she, as a leftist, gave a rather decent analysis.
Actually the entire article is well done.
Why is she on the left ?
I noted that, too .... old school liberal ? ... not today's rabid and lunatic left. The section you noted is very well written. she understands
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
10,859
Likes
14,734
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#5
I thought she, as a leftist, gave a rather decent analysis.
Actually the entire article is well done.
Why is she on the left ?
She almost proves my hypothesis... "Yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives!" The young liberals fight for their agendas and they change or alter their social & political realities for their generation... as they age, the next generation begins rising up with new ideas, concepts & agendas for their generation... The previous generation begins defending the agendas they fought so hard for, to prevent those agendas from being weakened, altered or destroyed by the maturing next generation...
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
13,813
Likes
23,357
Location
ORYGUN
#6
She almost proves my hypothesis... "Yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives!" The young liberals fight for their agendas and they change or alter their social & political realities for their generation... as they age, the next generation begins rising up with new ideas, concepts & agendas for their generation... The previous generation begins defending the agendas they fought so hard for, to prevent those agendas from being weakened, altered or destroyed by the maturing next generation...
Hmmm, does this prove the old adage that "shit runs downhill" ?
 

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,723
Likes
6,096
Location
south east
#7
Hmmm, does this prove the old adage that "shit runs downhill" ?
I didn't see it that way ... I saw it as another definition of 'old school'
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
13,813
Likes
23,357
Location
ORYGUN
#9
I didn't see it that way ... I saw it as another definition of 'old school'
I re-read it several times.

The young liberals fight for their agendas and they change or alter their social & political realities for their generation... as they age, the next generation begins rising up with new ideas, concepts & agendas for their generation...

Is this "rinse & repeat?"

Then:
The previous generation begins defending the agendas they fought so hard for, to prevent those agendas from being weakened, altered or destroyed by the maturing next generation...

I see this as "shit runs downhill". What am I misconstruing ?
OK, I'm leaving my comment & going to try to analyze this; We might be saying the same thing, differently.

It's old school trying to protect their ways against the new little shits coming up & making changes for their way of thinking.
Maybe I should have said "shit runs uphill!" :don't know:
 

FoundingFathers

Founder
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
3,154
Likes
5,101
#12
I would classify Camille much closer to a "classic" liberal vs. today's nut jobs.

Here's a great interview she did with Jordan Peterson regarding Post Modernism and Neo-Marxism in which they basically agree on everything. It's worth the 1+ hours to watch (even the first 15-20mins are worth it).

 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,645
Likes
5,276
#13
Yep I pretty much agreed with her for the most part. Maybe she is one of them actual democrats that were thought to be extinct for the last 20 or so years?
You mean the kind that actually thinks for him, or herself, who doesn't wake up in the morning and turn on their local version of "the news" to find out what cause they're supposed to be angry about today?
 

Joseph

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,723
Likes
6,096
Location
south east
#15
I would classify Camille much closer to a "classic" liberal vs. today's nut jobs.

Here's a great interview she did with Jordan Peterson regarding Post Modernism and Neo-Marxism in which they basically agree on everything. It's worth the 1+ hours to watch (even the first 15-20mins are worth it).

You beat me to it FF

Her reference to Peterson speaks volumes

There are astounding parallels between Jordan Peterson’s work and mine. In its anti-ideological, trans-historical view of sex and nature, my first book, Sexual Personae (1990), can be viewed as a companion to Peterson’s first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999). Peterson and I took different routes up the mountain — he via clinical psychology and I via literature and art — but we arrived at exactly the same place. Amazingly, over our decades of copious research, we were drawn to the same book by the same thinker — The Origins and History of Consciousness (1949), by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann. (My 2005 lecture on Neumann at New York University is reprinted in Provocations.) Peterson’s immense international popularity demonstrates the hunger for meaning among young people today. Defrauded of a genuine humanistic education, they are recognizing the spiritual impoverishment of their crudely politicized culture, choked with jargon, propaganda, and lies.
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,799
Likes
6,725
Location
Michiana
#16
Ms Paglia, usually a sharp commentator, missed the mark by a wide margin here. She has yet to come to grips with the reality of democrat election rigging/fraud and she seems absolutely clueless of Trump's achieved objectives and planned objectives.

She has has yet to grasp just how bad of shape the democrat party is in as she sees the party in chaos but has no stated sense of it's likely duration. She also appears blind to the amount of indictments heading the way of democrats.

Then again she could very well be waiting for facts and convictions...
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
26,078
Likes
31,007
#17
I have stated many times dems have zero to offer me, and my distaste runs deep enough to not even allow them a stage.

In this case, I have no problem with her opinions and actually read thru that. But I will counter.

She states .gov must be purged now and again to maintain freedom, yet she admittedly voted for capt crazy in the primaries. The guy is a full blown socialist wherein there is never enough .gov. Curiously left out, was who she voted for in the big show. I am left to assume it was the emailer.

Her affinity for jose biddle is a issue. Do you really see him as a pres? What the evil hatchet man would be with that type of power?

She had the op to jump ship and instead voted for capt crazy. Proving beyond doubt that she is a party follower and not of independent thought.

Note how she states affluent liberals were her students. That tells you something of where she was, and how she arrived with these views.

A real interesting take by her was re religion. Being a atheist but arguing that there is a place for it. That without it, persons are left to wander aimlessly and search for meaning or a replacement. That was quite a admission.

Yet, if you look at that, is she claiming to be more 'evolved' with her status? Where the slaves coming in front of her are lacking and need religion for direction prior to coming to her? Where she makes claims of religion, and is she really stating islamism, and the like are aok in our society? Is she saying it is aok for persons not to assimilate into society by wearing burkas while proclaiming death to amerika is aok?

What does her version of freedom really look like for the rest of us slaves, or those below her status?

In the end, she is no conservative, nor will be. A walking talking contradiction, says one thing while obviously doing another.

More importantly, she has been in the ranks of academia and spreading this nonsense far and wide.
 
Last edited: