Remembering the Lessons of the Iraq War | TaraElla In-Depth

Today, I want to talk about the 2003 Iraq War. The Iraq War was important to me, because it was like the start of my political consciousness. I was 16 and in college, and it was the first big political event to have truly influenced me. Back then, I believed the war was unjust, and the elites were both manufacturing consent for, and otherwise pressuring the people to, support an unjust war. From that, I saw that the so-called liberal democratic system that we were living in was neither liberal nor democratic, in the true sense of these words, if this was allowed to happen. Nearly two decades later, I still stand by my views.

The fact is, the establishment may call the West, as it stands, liberal and democratic, and they may even try to label themselves the guardians of the liberal and democratic order, but it doesn't mean that it is true. Real liberals must denounce this, if we want to keep our ideals free from their contamination. Let me say this: a truly liberal and democratic system would never have been able to launch the Iraq War. If America, Britain and Australia were truly liberal and democratic, the Iraq War would not have happened. Indeed, Western countries have been involved in most major international conflicts since 1945, the involvement had been generally decided by the establishment unilaterally, and I believe that none of it would have happened if the West was truly liberal and democratic.

As I like to say, if real liberalism and real democracy triumphed in the West, not only would the West be better for it, but the whole world would also be much more peaceful. Simply because things like the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and so on just won't happen anymore. Therefore, I believe it is our duty as Western citizens to make this happen. Uphold real liberalism, reject elite establishment control, and end all these unnecessary wars forever.

Back when the Cold War ended in the late 20th century, there was real hope that the endless wars would finally come to an end. But then, our ruling elites continued to have the Cold War mentality, that is, they divide the world into friends and enemies, they find threats where there are none, and they manufacture consent for conflict and war by encouraging a fearful us-vs-them mentality in the electorate. The so-called War On Terror was the first demonstration of how this model could be used beyond the Cold War. I'm worried that the elites will keep on using it, to keep manufacturing consent for more conflict and more war. This is bad news both from a world peace perspective, as well as from a domestic perspective in Western countries, because international conflict have usually meant severe restrictions on freedoms at home, as evidenced by the Dixie Chicks cancellation in 2003, events in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

We have limited ability to stop the elites from being pro-war, as it stands. In the longer run, we need to make things more liberal and democratic, as mentioned earlier, so that it would be much more difficult for the elites to start a conflict. In the meanwhile, calling out elite misuse of terms like 'freedom', 'liberal' and 'democratic' to justify international conflict, as well as rejecting pro-conflict propaganda from the elites, are good strategies. Too many people fell for the Bush administration's idea of 'spreading freedom' back then, and we must avoid this happening again. Perhaps a good strategy would be to just mind our own business. I don't understand enough about the world outside the West to make comments about them, and I don't comment on things outside the West. I also think this mind our own business strategy is a good strategy to prevent the elites from being able to manufacture consent for more international conflict. Besides, it would be unreasonable to expect the whole world to adopt Western systems and Western values, given the vast differences in cultural background. This is why, ideas like 'spreading freedom' are not only stupid, they are essentially meaningless excuses our elites use to manufacture consent for their wars.
 

When I Say I'm A Feminist & Anti-Racist, I'm Serious. | TaraElla In-Depth #1

Justice and liberty aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, free speech is required to lead us to the truth, where justice can be found.

Welcome to the first ever episode of TaraElla In-Depth. In this series, I want to do something a bit different. I want to talk about the really controversial stuff that comes with being a liberal these days, that deserves in-depth exploration.

I'm going to be blunt about why we need to do this. Firstly, many of the social justice causes that were long associated with liberalism have now been hijacked by criticalists, you know, the people practicing critical theory and postmodernism. They are largely responsible for the current cancel culture epidemic. Secondly, many commentators from the hardline part of the conservative side of the political spectrum have now taken up supporting free speech and opposing cancel culture, and in some cases, even exposing critical theory and postmodernism for the illogical and harmful things they are. However, they too often tie this with an inherently anti-social justice attitude, like they don't care enough about actual racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, or even worse, in some cases, actively perpetuate these attitudes. They are, at the same time, the loudest voices on opposing what I most fear right now, but they are also the people with the kind of politics I have opposed ever since my college days.

Let's start with this today. When I Say I'm A Feminist & Anti-Racist, I'm Serious. There's now this perception that, people who really care about free speech and really seriously oppose cancel culture, like myself, are somehow less serious about social justice. Well, not me, and I sometimes feel like I have to make this clear again and again. Indeed, it is because I care about social justice that I came to oppose criticalism in all its forms. I had decided that opposing criticalism should be a major priority, because criticalism is already causing harmful effects. It is causing LGBT acceptance to lose steam, LGBT rights to be potentially rolled back, and racial resentment to be mainstreamed. It's a shame that the cultural propaganda from criticalist activists have prevented many liberals from seeing the very real damage criticalism is doing to our causes, but because I see it very well, I can't pretend to not see it. Ultimately, I just can't not do everything I can about what I see as the forces most damaging to the causes I care about.

You know what? I'm against racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other form of discrimination. That's exactly why I can't support radical critical theory!

But with the Hardline Right also opposing criticalism at the same time, and them shouting much more loudly than us because they have more people and more money, opposing criticalism came to be confused with being hardline right-wing or at least sympathetic to them in recent years. As a result, it became harder and harder to be taken seriously as someone who was pro social justice and anti-criticalism. To be fair, the Right are doing the bulk of raising awareness about the harms of critical theory and postmodernism. I mean, there is currently a great podcast series on [how the Western criticalism we have now has been influenced by the thinking of] Gramsci, Marcuse, Crenshaw and more that is absolutely educational, that liberals would do well to listen to, as long as you ignore the parts that I would classify as Republican talking points (including, but not limited to, comments on various social justice movements, and foreign policy comments). Despite our political differences, I am a regular listener. The problem is that, not many of my fellow liberals are doing similar work, from a liberal perspective. I suspect it's because they were too invested with opposing Donald Trump in the past few years. I strongly dislike Trump too, but critical theory is clearly a bigger threat in the long run, because I think Trumpism is likely to die out in the not too distant future. Anyway, the problem with the Hardline Right being the dominant voice in anti-criticalism is that, some people reflexively associate any anti-criticalist person with Trump supporters, for example.

[update: I now think the aforementioned podcast is not so great after all, but the point remains].
 

Forget about choosing the Left or the Right. Both sides are really echo chambers with questionable morals. We should all be independent thinkers.

So I started opposing criticalism because it was harming social justice, and I hated to see that happen, but then, because I oppose criticalism and the Right is also doing it, some people began to see me as not serious about social justice. It's especially bad because there are plenty of people out there who would only pay lip service to being against racism for the sake of 'plausible deniability'. So what can I do now?

I will describe my journey through this dilemma, in which I swung from one side to another and possibly back to the middle. Or maybe I should say my style or aesthetic swung from one side to another, because my actual views did not change during this period. My initial reaction to being potentially lumped in with the Hard Right was to push back as much as possible. Back in 2016 and 2017, I would often say how much I hated Trump, and almost deliberately use lots of progressive-coded vocabulary in my work, so that I could tell the world I disagreed with the Hardline Right. But then, all that only made my work less accessible, and more confusing. I mean, if my goal is to oppose criticalism, then I probably shouldn't be using words and phrases made by criticalists, just to make myself sound more 'progressive'. Besides, I was becoming concerned that all the anti-Trump attitude was creating an us-vs-them dynamic, which was just going to encourage more criticalism. And then, I was sure there were quite a few liberals who had moved to the Trumpist Right, because of their frustration with the criticalist left. I came to believe we needed to win them back. So around 2018, my style swung hard to the other side, I tried to be extra inclusive of Trump supporters, to the point that I deliberately muted some of my criticism of Trump, which I do regret. I regret not speaking out more about Trump's deportations and family separations, for example. I believe those were really grave sins against humanity. This new prioritization alienated me from some progressives, and I strongly felt that my opinions on social justice issues were now being taken less seriously by other people who cared about this stuff. So we really had come full circle.

I think the whole of the Western world, and all of the politically minded people in it, have gone through a roller coaster ride in the past several years, and we are still making sense of it all. And I'm certainly still making sense of some parts of my recent journey. The pandemic has also allowed some moments for quiet reflection. And out of that reflection, I found a few new principles. Firstly, it is always unhelpful to engage in virtue signalling to prove a point. If we live by our conscience, it will shine through, and we should not care about the judgement of others in the short term. Indeed, nobody can satisfy the twitter mobs forever. Secondly, there is a way to be inclusive of everyone, to reach out and speak to those who disagree with you, yet still be yourself and not compromise your principles. I guess the important point is to not be angry or judgemental at those who disagree with you, and try to communicate with an open mind. Trust me, it will be appreciated and reciprocated, at least some of the time. Finally, in the midst of all this tribalism, culture wars, fake news, manufactured outrage, and so on, what one most needs are three things: bravery, independent thinking, and a clear moral compass.

With all that in mind, I hope to rebuild liberalism, as it was always meant to be. Progressive in an individualistic way. Principled, positive and not reactionary at all. And above all, a strong faith in objectivity, logical empiricism, and free speech.

Single of the Month: Year 2000

Now available in both download and streaming formats on multiple platforms online.

TaraElla Computer System (TECS) 21

 

Here We Go Again: The Co-Opting of BLM 2020 | Trad Lib News

NOTE: I have used 'neo-Marxist' in this article, because it's the more common term, but it's probably more accurate to say that it's 'pseudo-Marxist', given that it's really not Marxism they are practising at all.

Welcome back to Trad Lib News. Today, I'm going to talk about an uncomfortable topic: the radical Neo-Marxist takeover of progressive social movements. I need to talk about this now, because the Neo-Marxist attempt to co-opt the current wave of the Black Lives Matter movement is gaining steam, to the extent that they are actively trying to push liberals out. I am also worried that their actions are potentially turning the general public against the movement.

By Neo-Marxist, I mean activists in the contemporary West who are openly anti-capitalist to the extent that they want to end capitalism, and they aim to do so by combining pseudo-Marxist critical theory, and postmodernist and anarchist theories. The common thing among these theories is that they emphasize division and struggle over understanding and consensus. In recent days, many Neo-Marxists have decried liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Justin Trudeau for co-opting their movement, saying it belongs to the people in the streets, as if they think the people in the streets are all far-left too. However, the fact is, the current movement against police brutality has support across the political spectrum, with liberals, moderates, conservatives and socialists all represented, and this is what makes it strong. But no, the Neo-Marxists want the movement all to themselves. Even if it means making it ineffective as a result.

Meanwhile, the radical far-left have also inserted clearly irrelevant and potentially harmful distractions, like tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, who clearly has no relationship with police brutality, the topic we are talking about here, let alone the wider topic of racism against black people in contemporary America and the West.

One major problem with all this is that it is very good for President Trump, and other people who want to avoid the conversation about police brutality in general. They can just point to the involvement of those with a radical Neo-Marxist agenda, and paint the whole movement with a broad brush. In fact, I can see Trump moving in that direction already, and if the Neo-Marxists keep it up and the liberals don't at least try to stop them one way or another, Trump may just be able to, which could of course make reform more difficult in the short to medium term. In fact, the tactics of the radical far-left have often caused pain for people in need of justice in recent decades, including slowing down the acceptance of LGBT rights, as well as indirectly causing the gutting of the New Deal welfare state back in the 1970s and 80s. But then, from the neo-Marxist point of view, who needs these things when they have a life after the revolution to look forward to?

The fact is, liberals who care about social justice have every reason to fear Neo-Marxist activists being the biggest spoilers. Moreover, if liberals won't take a stance against the more extreme actions of Neo-Marxists, the Right is going to paint all of us as sympathizers, and not without ground either. Therefore, I believe it's time for liberals with a social justice conscience to start taking the threat from the far-left seriously.

Taylor Swift Ruins Feminism & Politics? | Free Speech Club

TaraElla: Welcome to the College Free Speech Club, where everyone can voice their opinions, no matter how unpopular.

Ashley: I'm sorry Swifties, but I really don't like the new, politicized Taylor Swift. She is contributing to political stupidity and political polarization.

TaraElla: What do you mean?

Ashley: She is contributing to the oversimplification of everything. She says a lot of political things, but none have any depth to them. Dumbing down complex issues is dangerous, because it hampers in-depth discussion and leads to misunderstanding and polarization. I mean, if she's not smart or brave enough to say more, maybe she should stop commenting on politics. At least that wouldn't be so harmful.

Allison: I don't see what the problem is. Taylor is a musician, so who cares about her political opinions?

TaraElla: Well, truth to be told, lots of people probably care. It's called celebrity culture.

Ashley: And some copy her too. That's the problem. She's promoting shallow politics, where she says she identifies with certain causes, while neither detailing her stance, nor dealing with those who take a different stance. Everything is just superficial identification, there's no discussion or debate. For example, Taylor says she's a feminist, but what kind of feminist is she? And how would she respond to critics of feminism?

TaraElla: Well, we at least know that she is not the 'gender critical' kind, because she likes trans people. But I guess someone should at least ask Taylor about her opinion on The Red Pill.

Allison: But what's so important about knowing her stance on these matters?

Ashley: I guess it's not her stance that's important, but rather, to encourage a healthy, in-depth discussion on complex matters like these. Feminism isn't a brand; there are different varieties of feminism out there, besides criticism of feminism isn't necessarily wrong either. Trotting out the feminist identity without dealing with these questions is superficial at best and evasive at worst. I think if we want a healthier marketplace of ideas, we should demand more of celebrities who participate in political discussions.

TaraElla: I guess this could be because she's relatively inexperienced about politics. I think it applies to her advocacy on the Equality Act too. Like she encourages people to sign her petition. But she has never really effectively answered to the opposition to LGBT rights. She's never taken time to debate the opposition, or discuss their concerns. You know, to achieve consensus and change requires hard work, and just shouting you support something wouldn't in itself change anything.

Perhaps given time she will mature. I think we just need to give her more time. And perhaps some gentle reminders of her current shortcomings. And lots of encouragement too.

In Defense of Taylor Swift

Ever since Taylor Swift began to speak out about her social and political beliefs, she has received backlash from both the political left and the political right. Taylor's recent stance in support of the US federal Equality Act is a good example of this. Left-wing people are unhappy about her not promoting so-called community activists, while right-wing people, who believe the act contains provisions they cannot accept, have called her irresponsible.

On a level, I think it's actually brave of Taylor to do what she is doing. She's already a very successful artist, and she really doesn't need the backlash. I guess she wants to see change on certain issues, and she's certainly entitled to her views. Besides, taking a stance is always braver than not doing so.

People should remember that, Taylor Swift is entitled to her free speech rights, to support what she wants, and to do it how she wants to do it. Being a celebrity shouldn't take that away from anyone.

You Need To Calm Down (and Listen To Me), BreadTube Taylor Swift Haters | BreadBusting #6

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. Today, I'm going to talk about the controversy surrounding Taylor Swift's new song You Need To Calm Down. Basically, Swift has released a song that is all pro-LGBT, but it has provoked backlash from both the left and the right. While I do agree with some of the criticisms levelled at the video for the song, I also think some of you may just need to, well, take Taylor's suggestion and calm down, so you can at least rationally understand where your anger is coming from. In fact, I think some of the people doing the backlash may ironically be making the same error Taylor herself has made with the video. I will show you why. By the way, my most important message won't come until the end, and it isn't what many of you think, so please listen to the whole thing.

Firstly, I agree that there is a good point to be made about how the anti-gay people in the video are portrayed as, for lack of a better term, rednecks. Not only is this stereotype not entirely fair, this also represents an attack on a particular class of people, which is totally not in line with the inclusive and unifying spirit of Pride. Furthermore, stereotyping and making fun of people is extremely ineffective at changing attitudes. Therefore, I think that people on both the left and the right are correct to point out this attitude problem, and I hope Taylor gets the message. However, it is also true that conservative attitudes are more common in working class people, and especially those who live in rural areas. While left-wing commentators have criticized Taylor for stereotyping 'rednecks' from a class-based perspective, I think I need to remind everyone that a true embrace of working class people must mean meeting them where they are, and accepting that, at least for now, they may have beliefs that we don't share, and respect their right to hold these beliefs. We must first accept people where they are, if we are to be able to start a conversation and hopefully change minds. This is what Taylor Swift doesn't seem to understand, and it's also what a large part of the left don't understand either.

Secondly, while right-wing criticism of Taylor Swift was rare until last year's midterm elections when she announced her support for Democrats, left-wing criticism of Taylor Swift has always been common. It used to be that she wasn't feminist enough, or that she refused to stand for any political causes. In left-wing circles, indie artists were always the coolest, but even mainstream pop acts like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Ariana Grande have always been cooler than Taylor Swift. Furthermore, some of Taylor's early hits, including You Belong With Me and Fifteen, were particularly hated on the left for cultural reasons. Therefore, while You Need To Calm Down may deserve some criticism regardless, I think it would have attracted much less hostility from the left if it were released by another artist. For example, Lady Gaga's Born This Way was similar in many ways, except for making fun of 'rednecks', and yet there was little left-wing hostility to its release back in 2011.

Some people have attributed the anti-Swift sentiment on the left to her ultra-rich family background. But this doesn't make sense, because realistically you would have to be ultra-rich to get into the Billboard top 20 nowadays. In fact, the way the business is structured nowadays, I can't imagine an everyday working person getting too far in the music industry, even if they were extremely talented. But leftists don't hate all mainstream pop. Instead, I think that the left-wing hostility towards Taylor Swift is a cultural thing. You see, the particular contemporary influences of the 1960s and 70s student activist generation, coupled with the way much of leftist critical theory is geared, means that there is a certain cultural aesthetic that the left embraces. In the post-1970s leftist aesthetic, things that are seen as inherently cool include rebellion against traditional norms, lack of respect for traditional values and boundaries, and a defiance against the cultural value of purity. Hence, indie rock artists are cool because they embody this aesthetic, Lady Gaga is at least a bit cool because she embraces at least a bit of this ethos, but Taylor Swift has long been seen as the antithesis of this ethos, and hence a cultural enemy. This doesn't just apply to musicians by the way: I suspect the historical popularity of certain philosophers, for example Michel Foucault, could be partly because they fit well with the post-70s leftist ethos, rather than what they actually had to say. Furthermore, leftists seem to prefer atheist thinkers and politicians over religious ones, where they are equally as progressive otherwise, because atheism fits with the rebellion aesthetic in Western society. TLDR: leftist in-group identity is partly aesthetic, and Taylor Swift has long been seen as suspect in leftist circles because she failed their aesthetic test.

On the other hand, people on the political right, who became at least partly defined by their opposition to 1960s and 70s activism, have been more likely to embrace those who are aesthetically opposite to the new left-wing cultural ethos. Hence, many of them took Taylor Swift to be one of their own. This was why, when Taylor Swift revealed her politics in 2018, many people on the political right were quite upset. They never expected Taylor to be socially progressive, because they always thought she was one of them! This also explains why some on the right are particularly upset at Taylor Swift supporting the Equality Act, despite many other celebrities already doing the same. In effect, Taylor has now found herself in no-mans-land in terms of political aesthetic, hence all the backlash from both sides.

The take home message is that, it is important to note that, many leftists who have long hated Taylor Swift may in fact have committed the same type of error Taylor herself committed when she made this video making fun of working class 'rednecks'. Of course, this also applies to right-wing people who are still upset Taylor isn't one of them after all. In all of these cases, it is aesthetic-based identity politics that is causing the problem. Looking in terms of the actual political scene, aesthetic-based identity politics seems to be generally working well for the right, and working very badly for the left. In fact, an important reason why left-leaning parties aren't doing so well internationally is because of the rise of aesthetic-based identity politics. Everyday working people generally love traditional institutions and traditional values, and in a battle based mostly on aesthetic identity, the right will win among the working class every single time. Ironically, it was the New Left that started all this, and it is also the current iteration of the New Left, that is the Breadists of BreadTube and elsewhere, who remain in deep denial about the real reason they are unpopular with the working class, and won't even acknowledge this being a problem. You just need to look at a few BreadTube videos to see that they do certainly have a particular aesthetic, and that aesthetic is thoroughly rebellious and anti-traditional, making it unlikely to be embraced by the working class. The truth is, they can laugh at Ben Shapiro all they like, but if they had someone who presents their stuff like he does, I bet a lot more working class people would listen to them. Finally, as a classical liberal, I am committed to getting rid of all identity politics, and that includes aesthetic-based identity politics.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.

Lady Gaga Surprises with I'll Never Love Again

I'll admit it: I've underestimated Lady Gaga all these years. For many years, my view on her was that her music was OK, but she was more known for her stunts. Like that meat dress (very horrible indeed). I truly thought that, without the stunts, she would have been less special.

But maybe she should have sung ballads all along. Her latest track, I'll Never Love Again from the soundtrack for A Star Is Born, actually surprised me. Lady Gaga, without all the stunts, was actually still something special! I'm very impressed indeed.

The TaraElla song I would choose to go with I'll Never Love Again is Love Is All Around Us. The reason is simple: they are both ballads.

Taylor Swift vs Kanye West, the Ultimate Political Paradox?

Today I'm going to have a look at the recent political drama surrounding Taylor Swift, now presumed by many to be left-leaning, and her long-time critic Kanye West, now known to be a proud supporter of President Donald Trump.

Taylor the Progressive vs Kanye the Conservative? Surprise, Surprise!

We need to put this all in context. Just this time last year, Kanye West was a favourite among self-described progressives, who have seen Kanye as one of them ever since he criticised President Bush back in 2005. When Kanye started to proclaim his support for President Trump earlier this year, it disappointed many progressives. Some have even asked themselves if they should still like his music. Which is absurd, because his music has nothing to do with politics. On the other hand, Taylor Swift was often considered to be probably conservative by many people. Over the years, I have read many articles and casual comments from progressives, saying that Taylor Swift was the musical equaivalent of John McCain, whatever that meant; that she wasn't a good feminist, whatever that meant; and even that she probably didn't support gay marriage, which has been of course proven wrong last week. Conservatives also seemed to think that Taylor was likely one of their own, heaping praise on her family friendly style as far back as her second album in 2009. Needless to say, Taylor coming out to endorse two Democrats was taken as a very pleasant surprise by progressives, while conservatives have generally been disappointed. When President Trump now says he likes Taylor 25% less, I think many conservatives can't help but share his sentiment there.

But should we really have been surprised?

But let's look at all this from a cool-headed, centrist perspective, because that's what we always do here on this show. By the way, if you have any further thoughts you want to provide, please drop me a comment so we can continue this interesting conversation. From what I have observed, the fact is, we actually didn't know much about Taylor or Kanye's politics until this year. Quite a few people have assumed Taylor to be right-leaning, or Kanye to be left-leaning, based on their own prejudices, nothing more. It was always an assumption based on prejudice, based on stereotyping. The fact that Taylor did country music and presented a more traditional lifestyle didn't mean she was conservative politically, and the fact that Kanye criticised President Bush didn't mean he was necessarily left-leaning. In recent years, both progressives and conservatives have been too easily swayed by the aesthetics of personalities and ideas, and this has affected our ability to think rationally. Perhaps the twin political surprises of Taylor and Kanye are just what we need most, right now. The fact that people are surprised by Taylor and Kanye's politics says a lot about how prejudiced and irrational people have become, more than anything else.

Let's start treating Individuals as Individuals

So how can we become more rational? We need to start treating individuals as individuals, rather than stereotypes. We need to respect that individuals are unique in all sorts of ways, and that can be a good thing. This is one of the biggest themes of my work. Real freedom is based on respect for individual differences. We need to accept that the people we like aren't always going to be exactly like ourselves, because everyone is unique. For a start, progressives need to be able to respect Kanye's right to his political views without feeling differently about his music; and conservatives need to do the same about Taylor Swift. Right now, many conservatives may feel like liking Taylor 25% less, but there's really no reason to do so, because Taylor Swift is a musician, not a politician. Her politics do not matter. Furthermore, conservatives who can't agree with Taylor's politics can still praise her relatively family friendly style, like they did back in 2009. Nothing has changed in that regard. Similarly, there's no reason for progressives to stop listening to Kanye's music, if they were previously into that. His music hasn't changed.